Skrillex - Discuss, Debate, Praise, Hate

How dare people have fun listening to music.

It makes me sick.

  On 3/10/2012 at 2:20 AM, ruiagnelo said:

Skrillex is damaging the same amount of musical tastes as other forms of pop music have been doing in the last few decades. this time is just different because it's music that is mostly electronic and watmm gets all nervous.

but the most important point is that, what you expect from music, as you say depth, skill or atmosphere, which is what most of us want from music as well, is not really what skrillex fans are expecting, especially the teenagers. in fact they really don't know what that is. they just want something they can bang their heads to and can get their junkie bodies moving.

 

all this skrillex 70 page debate has lead nowhere

Agreed, although I don't see a debate so much as a 70 page collection of funny pictures and puns.

Sometimes it's like everyone on watmm forgets how genre-prone and easily pigeon holed and formulaic and hackish most electronic music is.

I definitely don't enjoy the skrillster but he's only as egregious as your average formulaic pop adherent. And if anything loves its easy formulas, it's electronic dance music.

I do think the structure of his songs is cheesy as hell, really just because the formula is so expected and obvious after listening to two of his tracks. But it sells. CALL 911 SKREEEE

I guess the watmm tension comes from the name dropping of Ae or AFX as influences and the sort of antithetical structural approach Skrillhouse takes. But I'm sure you can find an analogous name drop with anyone else. Limp Bizkit probably name dropped Zappa once, or Crimson, or Idiot Flesh or something.

The thing is-- this is the important part, watmm -- something about Skrillex is fundamentally hilarious. I am interested in this fundamentally hilarious aspect of you, sonny. You should capitalize on it. It's rare. Also make a musique concrete album, lol.

Not sure if he has acne scars or is turning into a lizard.

This thread sorta made me like Skrillex

y'know, as a character

Skrillex vs. dubstep

http://www.google.com.au/trends/?q=dubstep,+skrillex&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

  On 3/10/2012 at 3:15 AM, baph said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 2:20 AM, ruiagnelo said:

Skrillex is damaging the same amount of musical tastes as other forms of pop music have been doing in the last few decades. this time is just different because it's music that is mostly electronic and watmm gets all nervous.

but the most important point is that, what you expect from music, as you say depth, skill or atmosphere, which is what most of us want from music as well, is not really what skrillex fans are expecting, especially the teenagers. in fact they really don't know what that is. they just want something they can bang their heads to and can get their junkie bodies moving.

 

all this skrillex 70 page debate has lead nowhere

 

 

Agreed, although I don't see a debate so much as a 70 page collection of funny pictures and puns.

 

Sometimes it's like everyone on watmm forgets how genre-prone and easily pigeon holed and formulaic and hackish most electronic music is.

 

I definitely don't enjoy the skrillster but he's only as egregious as your average formulaic pop adherent. And if anything loves its easy formulas, it's electronic dance music.

 

I do think the structure of his songs is cheesy as hell, really just because the formula is so expected and obvious after listening to two of his tracks. But it sells. CALL 911 SKREEEE

 

I guess the watmm tension comes from the name dropping of Ae or AFX as influences and the sort of antithetical structural approach Skrillhouse takes. But I'm sure you can find an analogous name drop with anyone else. Limp Bizkit probably name dropped Zappa once, or Crimson, or Idiot Flesh or something.

 

The thing is-- this is the important part, watmm -- something about Skrillex is fundamentally hilarious. I am interested in this fundamentally hilarious aspect of you, sonny. You should capitalize on it. It's rare. Also make a musique concrete album, lol.

posts like this are why you're one of my favourites.

  On 3/10/2012 at 3:59 AM, kaini said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 3:15 AM, baph said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 2:20 AM, ruiagnelo said:

but the most important point is that, what you expect from music, as you say depth, skill or atmosphere, which is what most of us want from music as well, is not really what skrillex fans are expecting, especially the teenagers. in fact they really don't know what that is. they just want something they can bang their heads to and can get their junkie bodies moving.

 

all this skrillex 70 page debate has lead nowhere

The thing is-- this is the important part, watmm -- something about Skrillex is fundamentally hilarious. I am interested in this fundamentally hilarious aspect of you, sonny. You should capitalize on it. It's rare. Also make a musique concrete album, lol.

 

posts like this are why you're one of my favourites.

seriously.

Robert Henke had some of the best comments about Skrillex I've seen beyond WATMM

I think it's jazz, but whatever.

  Quote

Those colors you mentioned. Are those the colors of previous albums as well? Or do you even think in terms of that?

 

I certainly do, yeah. I mean, in general, I like sounds which are slightly inharmonic. And I like sounds which don't have a precisely defined pitch. I will take sounds that are fresh and bright, and then I will play it ten times and it gets lower and noisier and lower and noisier each time and at some point I get rid of everything which is clear. So I guess I like these more foggy sounds in a way. To me, it rewards more careful listening. And this is of course why the bright tunnel sounds are so effective in pop music production. Because they are in your face. I mean, I just happened to listen to Skrillex because it's... You can't escape it currently.

 

Well, you can. You seem like the type of person who would have to go out of your way to listen to Skrillex.

 

I'm curious. And I learned to skip my prejudice, you know. There are a lot of reasons why I could say I hate this kind of music. But then, on the other side, I think I should at least try to understand what makes people like this stuff so much.

 

What did you figure out from listening to him? Anything? Anything positive?

 

Hah. Well, first of all as a technique his use of contrast is of course very intriguing. Even if I don't like how he executes it. Like, what kinds of contrasts he is choosing and what kinds of sounds he's using and what kind of clichés. His success seems to be based on this contrast between cheesy melodies and the evil dubstep cliché. And, without the contrast, it would be completely unbearable. If it would be only the evil dubstep cliché sounds you would immediately want to turn it off after ten minutes. If it would be only the cheesy melodies and vocals, then it would be unbearable. The combination is what makes it interesting to me.

 

More than anything, I find it very exhausting to listen to.

 

It's absolutely exhausting. And that is the very interesting thing. It's something you listen to for the very first time and you think, "oh, wow." And you listen to it the second time and you think "ooof." I believe that my music works exactly the other way around. You listen to it the first time and it's kind of "Yeah, hmm, it's OK." You listen to it ten times and you think, "Hmm, interesting detail here."

 

You say that Skrillex has these clichés, but do you find that experimental electronic music also has its own clichés?

 

Of course. I believe art cannot exist without clichés. I've never seen something 100% unique. I only see unique things if I don't know enough about what other people did. The more I learn about art in all forms, the more I understand that it's all a slow process. It's just people adding on top of each other.

 

I believe more in interesting evolutions than anything revolutionary. I think what distinguishes interesting music from less interesting music is people either using the cliché in interesting ways or repeating it exactly. Sometimes the most successful and intriguing music is the one which uses the cliché, but looks at it from a slightly different angle. It's the same in movies. What makes a good movie? That you can somehow anticipate the next movement, and then it comes—but from a totally different angle. That's when you think, "Damn, this is cool."

 

later in the interview...

 

You seem very passionate about the mastering process. You have an interview with Rashad where you go in-depth in explaining it.

 

Well, I guess it goes back to Skrillex. What makes it so exhausting? To me, what makes this type of music so exhausting is the fact that it's completely in your face all the time. Imagine something like Skrillex where the cheesy piano parts have low volume and then the drop comes and the bassline stuff doesn't occupy the whole spectrum. It wouldn't work. The new dubstep aesthetic is having a bassline which fills up the whole frequency range. While, if you look back and listen to the UK dubstep from six years ago, the bass was a sine wave. If you have laptop speakers, the old stuff simply isn't there.

 

Skrillex's basslines have five million overtones, which will even translate to the speaker of your cellphone. That's what makes it work on a commercial level: The fact that it's completely flat and full-scale all the time. What excites me, and what I like, are the holes. The silences. There are parts in the music, which are empty and then it becomes full again. And mastering has a lot to do with that.

 

I can't really think of many ways to objectively rate music except by popularity, so in some senses Skrillex is way better than anyone we listen to. I mean, the music is made to be enjoyed, and since people are enjoying it it serves its purpose. I don't think it's "ruining" anyone's tastes. It's not really a moral issue; tastes can't really be "ruined", they can only change or stagnate.

  On 3/10/2012 at 5:23 AM, gmanyo said:

I can't really think of many ways to objectively rate music except by popularity, so in some senses Skrillex is way better than anyone we listen to. I mean, the music is made to be enjoyed, and since people are enjoying it it serves its purpose. I don't think it's "ruining" anyone's tastes. It's not really a moral issue; tastes can't really be "ruined", they can only change or stagnate.

is there not some sort of intelligence quotient factor involved?

for example a measurement of intelligence and how it intersects with certain preferences, thus resolving the interval amount of people whom their intelligence falls under a certain rating to prefer certain types of music?

IE, x amount of people are less than y intelligence quotient, and z amount of x people prefer skrillex?

Inherently, it can be proven that only stupid people like skrillex and therefore it is not good music, no?

I can prove this using chi-square distributions and other statistical analysis methods. haha

  On 3/10/2012 at 6:25 AM, StephenG said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 5:23 AM, gmanyo said:

I can't really think of many ways to objectively rate music except by popularity, so in some senses Skrillex is way better than anyone we listen to. I mean, the music is made to be enjoyed, and since people are enjoying it it serves its purpose. I don't think it's "ruining" anyone's tastes. It's not really a moral issue; tastes can't really be "ruined", they can only change or stagnate.

 

is there not some sort of intelligence quotient factor involved?

 

for example a measurement of intelligence and how it intersects with certain preferences, thus resolving the interval amount of people whom their intelligence falls under a certain rating to prefer certain types of music?

 

IE, x amount of people are less than y intelligence quotient, and z amount of x people prefer skrillex?

 

Inherently, it can be proven that only stupid people like skrillex and therefore it is not good music, no?

 

I can prove this using chi-square distributions and other statistical analysis methods. haha

I mean, you could. But I feel subjectively that that's not a very good subjective method for objectively rating music.

All ridiculous statements aside, I do know several smart people who love Skrillex. The salutatorian in my high school class loves Disney stars and High School Musical. Also he's a guy.

  On 3/10/2012 at 6:40 AM, gmanyo said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 6:25 AM, StephenG said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 5:23 AM, gmanyo said:

I can't really think of many ways to objectively rate music except by popularity, so in some senses Skrillex is way better than anyone we listen to. I mean, the music is made to be enjoyed, and since people are enjoying it it serves its purpose. I don't think it's "ruining" anyone's tastes. It's not really a moral issue; tastes can't really be "ruined", they can only change or stagnate.

 

is there not some sort of intelligence quotient factor involved?

 

for example a measurement of intelligence and how it intersects with certain preferences, thus resolving the interval amount of people whom their intelligence falls under a certain rating to prefer certain types of music?

 

IE, x amount of people are less than y intelligence quotient, and z amount of x people prefer skrillex?

 

Inherently, it can be proven that only stupid people like skrillex and therefore it is not good music, no?

 

I can prove this using chi-square distributions and other statistical analysis methods. haha

I mean, you could. But I feel subjectively that that's not a very good subjective method for objectively rating music.

 

All ridiculous statements aside, I do know several smart people who love Skrillex. The salutatorian in my high school class loves Disney stars and High School Musical. Also he's a guy.

statistically those smart/skrillex loving people would be known as outliers, statistical extremities which lie outside of the normal joint probability of skrillex=stupid....

They lie outside of the average range or interval...

I guess my statements are assuming that there is a link between intelligence and music preference, maybe there isnt?

  On 3/10/2012 at 6:44 AM, StephenG said:

statistically those smart/skrillex loving people would be known as outliers, statistical extremities which lie outside of the normal joint probability of skrillex=stupid....

 

They lie outside of the average range or interval...

 

I guess my statements are assuming that there is a link between intelligence and music preference, maybe there isnt?

I think there might be, but I would imagine that it's mostly correlational, not causal. Also, frat boys are surprisingly smart. I mean, they exist at pretty much every university, including ones like Stanford.

  On 3/10/2012 at 12:51 AM, Rhombix said:

krillex is damaging the musical tastes of millions of fans with this bilge.

LOL

Please take a sec to think about this statement. Listening to music damages peoples tastes? The word "ridiculous" comes to mind. And also "totalitarian". Come on. Get a grip on yourself and tell me it aint so Joe.

  On 3/10/2012 at 7:08 AM, gmanyo said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 6:44 AM, StephenG said:

statistically those smart/skrillex loving people would be known as outliers, statistical extremities which lie outside of the normal joint probability of skrillex=stupid....

 

They lie outside of the average range or interval...

 

I guess my statements are assuming that there is a link between intelligence and music preference, maybe there isnt?

 

I think there might be, but I would imagine that it's mostly correlational, not causal. Also, frat boys are surprisingly smart. I mean, they exist at pretty much every university, including ones like Stanford.

Yeah I can't help but come to the same conclusion.

There are so many factors that prevent a simple "skrillex listeners = stupid" assumption. I have very musical friends with broad and diverse tastes that like brostep among the music I and most watmmers would deem "good." Likewise, I have very smart and intellectual friends who can't listen to anything beyond fairly tame rock, pop, and jazz. A few even, in rather funny manner, talk my ear off about some amazing "indie" or "experimental" music and it turns out they're telling me about something well known and established, like Bjork or Muse (or Radiohead, lol).

My point is, some intelligent and reasonable people just don't have a passion for music. It's a different wiring of the brain maybe. Others focus on other forms of art or hobbies. For me personally, music listening and discovery fills a void that could theoretically be replaced with avid reading, gaming, or even a hobby like stamp collecting or building scale models. But I also know very musically talented and imaginative people who like Skrillex. Many of those, especially teens, could easily get into Aphex, or Burial, or really niche genres like minimal techno or drone, etc. I got into electronic via Chemical Brothers and far worse EDM than that. I know in retrospect I was seeking new sounds and diverse music at the time. Many of us here are DJs, producers, and collectors of music. That same drive is at least some Skrillex fans but when everything is digital and online, it changes everything. Artists aren't tied to specific venues or scenes. Regional genres are increasingly irrelevant when the style can go global so quickly. Skrillex fans are avid, but there aren't dubplates, vinyl 12" releases to collect, hard copy bootlegs to seek out, etc. It unfortunately leads to a greater sense of superficial liking than true appreciation.

The problem with discussing music or a musician in terms or taste and popularity is that it leads to ignorant assumptions and irrational comparisons. Do I have legitimate complaints about Skrillex and his peers? Yes. Do I have a legitimate reason to tell people to not listen to him? No. I especially don't have facts to pigeon-hold his fans either. Most people don't ask questions or engage in reasonable discussion anymore, at least online. They take what they like and place it above what they don't. If someone likes 70s classic rock, they declare "this was when music was good" in the comments of a Led Zeppelin video. Or "Real hip-hop!" at the bottom of a Tribe Called Quest vid. "Better than Justin Beiber" at the bottom of some other shitty pop song. And dozens, if not hundreds or people feel gratified by "liking" those comments. It's lazy self-satisfaction. And likewise, anger and frustration can develop by taking crowd stupidity and evil troll comments personally. And I'll go ahead and say this bullshit has seeped into discussion of politics, society, religion, etc. That's why things seem so fucked...ignorance and irrationality are embraced. Thank god for memes and troll comments to laugh it off in the meantime.

  On 3/10/2012 at 12:51 AM, Rhombix said:

I've heard the name Skrillex getting thrown around for months now, but I've just sat down and listened to three of his tracks on YouTube.

 

I genuinely do not understand the appeal of this music. What is so good about this? This is the simplest, laziest, most shallow feeling of happiness expressed as loudly and distractingly as possible. There is no depth, skill or atmosphere involved in making this material.

 

Musical talent is about expressing emotion, and conveying moods and feelings where words are not enough. Whereas I can convey every detail of "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" by shouting "IIIM CRAZY HAPPPIES!!!1 LOL OMG".

 

Skrillex is damaging the musical tastes of millions of fans with this bilge. Why do people confuse the strength of a mood (e.g. AS HAPPY AS POSSIBLE) with the talent that went into expressing it? I've heard present-day musical artists convey emotions so rich with detail I can barely imagine them without sounds to back them up. Yet over 69 million people flock to a synthesized rendition of the euphoria an insect feels when it has a wank.

 

I dunno, fuck this shit.

Idiotic post all around. Skrillex is the simplest form of electronic music, the people that like skrillex will soon discover more and more electronic music. (such as AFX, Autechre, etc)

  On 3/10/2012 at 7:59 PM, YO303 said:

  On 3/10/2012 at 12:51 AM, Rhombix said:

I've heard the name Skrillex getting thrown around for months now, but I've just sat down and listened to three of his tracks on YouTube.

 

I genuinely do not understand the appeal of this music. What is so good about this? This is the simplest, laziest, most shallow feeling of happiness expressed as loudly and distractingly as possible. There is no depth, skill or atmosphere involved in making this material.

 

Musical talent is about expressing emotion, and conveying moods and feelings where words are not enough. Whereas I can convey every detail of "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" by shouting "IIIM CRAZY HAPPPIES!!!1 LOL OMG".

 

Skrillex is damaging the musical tastes of millions of fans with this bilge. Why do people confuse the strength of a mood (e.g. AS HAPPY AS POSSIBLE) with the talent that went into expressing it? I've heard present-day musical artists convey emotions so rich with detail I can barely imagine them without sounds to back them up. Yet over 69 million people flock to a synthesized rendition of the euphoria an insect feels when it has a wank.

 

I dunno, fuck this shit.

 

Idiotic post all around. Skrillex is the simplest form of electronic music, the people that like skrillex will soon discover more and more electronic music. (such as AFX, Autechre, etc)

but... but but but..... but then our music will be popular... =(

It already is you pleb

  On 3/10/2012 at 8:11 PM, chassis said:

It already is you pleb

glad you can detect my sarcasm

Thats a sarcastic sad face alright.

LOL

  On 3/10/2012 at 8:14 PM, chassis said:

Thats a sarcastic sad face alright.

glad you can detect my sarcastic sad face =(

• derp
  

  On 3/10/2012 at 7:40 PM, joshuatxuk said:

Many of those, especially teens, could easily get into Aphex, or Burial, or really niche genres like minimal techno or drone, etc. I got into electronic via Chemical Brothers and far worse EDM than that. I know in retrospect I was seeking new sounds and diverse music at the time.

I still like The Chemical Brothers. I'm pretty much the same way, though; my dad had some stuff by The Chemical Brothers, The Prodigy, The Crystal Method and a few other EDM guys, and I listened to those first. It was always my favorite music back then. The moment of change for me was when I discovered the "Experimental Electronica" iTunes essential (sadly gone now) in like, 7th or 8th grade and was like what the fuck is this it is awesome. I started mainly with Amon Tobin, and moved on from there. I've always been a sucker for electronica.

  On 3/10/2012 at 7:40 PM, joshuatxuk said:

If someone likes 70s classic rock, they declare "this was when music was good" in the comments of a Led Zeppelin video. Or "Real hip-hop!" at the bottom of a Tribe Called Quest vid. "Better than Justin Beiber" at the bottom of some other shitty pop song. And dozens, if not hundreds or people feel gratified by "liking" those comments. It's lazy self-satisfaction.

I have to admit to doing this (like,

On an unrelated note, Andre 3000's mouth is fucking huge.

some crazy fan

I will start taking Skrillex seriously when I see him with some facial hair. He doesn't have to wear it all the time but I wouldn't mind seeing an IDM style beard on occasion.