cool thread on aphex

lol

lol

lol

Wasn't sure where else to put this so it's going in here, anyone else heard this before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH2wGad3trQ&list=FLx8f_48BOwv901oC5LafXNQ&index=4&feature=plpp_video

  On 11/22/2012 at 11:15 PM, yikes said:

i posted this thread because there were some interesting anecdotes,opinions, and such.

the guy I quoted was just one opinion of many and not meant to be taken as the gospel.

It seems RDJ agrees in action about "the future is in performing,not releasing more music"

obviously we all want new aphex material but until then dig the lasers man.

 

i don't think every person who posts on gear slutz is a musical loser.

 

example:charlie clouser posts some very interesting stuff as do many others.

 

to write off the entire thread or the forum is a bit shortsighted.

 

50% of that thread is dedicated to people riding richard's jock.

 

It's funny to see how protective and reactionary you are all towards RDJ and overall I find it cute and endearing.

My reaction is in no way concerned with Aphex Twin and in no way was I attempting to protect him.

i think it's kind of funny how most music you'd find posted by users of forums such as this (here at watmm), sounds like analord wannabees. i'm not trying to be a dick about this, but it's just weird. i like some stuff in analord, but like hours of that stuff is just boring as hell and way too simple. i don't want to then go out and seek out thousands more hours of even LESS creative stuff made by internet peoples. also, on one hand i feel like copying something so blatantly just seems pointless, but on the other if you look at the stuff on rephlex, lots of it seems like pale copies of afx. big surprise that richard has an ego and strokes it by surrounding himself with followers? so maybe that explains why soundclick is full of analord knock-offs, in the hopes that richard hears that stuff and sends an email with a rephlex invite?

i would rather try to start my own label and do something new or different and never get noticed, than be on rephlex sounding like a crappy afx, but that's me.

It can be a fun challenge to try to somewhat emulate someone else's style and put your own spin on it, but there's only so much time you can devote to doing that. It makes more sense to blend together lots of different ideas in your own unique combination.

  On 11/23/2012 at 3:57 PM, MisterE said:

i think it's kind of funny how most music you'd find posted by users of forums such as this (here at watmm), sounds like analord wannabees.

This sentiment gets tossed out on a weekly basis & I don't really get it. I don't mean to suggest there isn't a lot of derivative stuff floating around, because there is (though honestly sometimes I see stuff posted & people are like MAN WHO DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS RIPPING OFF AFX BY USING SYNTHS & REVERB), but to me way more of it seems inspired by the general early 90s sound or BoC (and lately there's been kinduva Clams Casino/J Dilla thing going on with chopped up pop song samples) than by Analord

But I've only ever heard like 3 tracks off Analords so my mental image of it is limited mainly to "raw sounding analogue freakout shuffles"

I totally hear the Analord ripoff thing. I don't mind it. I still think it sounds cool, if not unique. I'm not going to single anyone out but there are several peeps who are/were on here doing this kind of thing. Maybe people don't notice or mind because it's still pretty impressive. I don't think it's the easiest sound to pull off.

It's not so much...

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:29 PM, Cryptowen said:

SYNTHS & REVERB

...as, yeah...

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:29 PM, Cryptowen said:

"raw sounding analogue freakout shuffles"

Basically:

- Big, shuffly, moderately fast 80s/disco beats with snares on 2 and 4, analog sounding but using sampled snares and hats that blend well and still have that raw/80s/analog sound

- Vaguely baroque, often minor-key melodies with acid-like textures, not 303s but with the same tweaking/modulation of filter cutoff and similar parameters that shape tonality without obscuring melody

- Bright pads with raw or basic waveforms, often with subtle pitch modulation, not usually through reverb but sometimes with delay that fattens up the pads by folding the detune back on itself (though this is sometimes just done with 2 oscillators)

- Frequent, often abrupt changes in drum layering/texture/processing, usually retaining main rhythm structure. I think of this as an extension of drill n bass or breakcore, retaining the surprise and intensity, but bringing the tempo back to pop speeds.

- Occasional key or melody changes, at intervals expected in pop music, though not with verse/chorus structure

- A general retro analog sound without being particularly nostalgic

It's almost like a genre into itself. But (because its fans tend to be nerds rather than hoards of teenage girls and mediocre music journalists) it doesn't have a genre name and usually just gets referred to as "analord ripoff".

I think that the modern acid techno sound is a popular genre. I think the people on Rephlex just make braindance and that's why a lot of them sound similar. Your opinion seems blatantly cynical. As if people aren't making this music because it is the music they enjoy making. I don't see these people making this music because they want to sound like Aphex Twin or want a record deal. It is the way they express themselves through sound. Also, Aphex Twin uses a lot of good techniques and emulating him is very instructive on how to use synthesizers and drum machines. Why wouldn't I want my music to at least be inspired by the music to which I listen?

Dude, did you read my first paragraph? It might not be something that I'm interested in trying my hand at, but I like the sound. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a good sound, I can relate to it. Where did I say it was insincere? I'm just trying to examine its characteristics. That doesn't take the piss out of it.

Well I was talking more to MisterE's reply, but all in all a decent load of cynicism floating through this thread.

It's cause I used the p word innit

I don't think saying "cynicism" by itself adds much to the discussion. Can you identify a specific thought you take issue with?

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:21 PM, ZoeB said:

It can be a fun challenge to try to somewhat emulate someone else's style and put your own spin on it, but there's only so much time you can devote to doing that. It makes more sense to blend together lots of different ideas in your own unique combination.

I like this idea that you can consciously combine influences. I haven't been able to do this successfully. Then again I don't think I've really put much effort into doing so intentionally.

I invented Analord-Step. and Juke. and Footwork. AND Dub Step.

i'm not saying that things can't be similar or have obvious influences. but when there is a sea of things out there that sound like analord, and when most of analord itself just sounds like basic repetitive patterns done with an analog synth, it just seems pointless. in my opinion, most of analord is richards least impressive work, and out of his entire catalog, exhibits the least amount of personality. i think that anyone here who had a 10,000$ modular synth could churn out similar patterns and they would sound similar. obviously i'm simplifying what goes into that, but it can't be denied that it's a very basic, minimal style, and most of what you hear is because of the synths themselves rather than the user. some of the tracks on analord are just as awesome as anything else richard ever did, but many of them are just like a hundred modular synth demos you'd find on youtube, along with a super repetitive beat from a roland.

now, take that recipe, but then strip away whatever super subtle nuances richard actually managed to get into those tracks, take away some of the sound quality (since most of us actually DON'T have a real modular), the unique quirkiness, and then you are left with the tracks you find that were obviously influenced by analord. cynical? maybe. but i don't really see where the 'artist' is expressing his or herself at that point. the synth is making the sound, and richard and others before him laid out the blueprint, and the style is too basic for much room for personality. instead of expressing it's more like reflecting. is it ok for someone to do that with the tools they have? sure. is it practice? sure. but that's about it.

if i could listen to one guy's analord inspired tracks, and tell them apart from another guy's analord 'inspired' tracks, then i'd call it expression.

Reductionism!

cool threads on aphex

*photo of Aphex Twin wearing a knit sweater & sunglasses*

  On 11/23/2012 at 6:07 PM, sweepstakes said:

It's almost like a genre into itself. But (because its fans tend to be nerds rather than hoards of teenage girls and mediocre music journalists) it doesn't have a genre name and usually just gets referred to as "analord ripoff".

I believe at least one person (maybe more?) has attempted to get people to start calling it A&D (analogue and digital), although that seems like as vague a name as IDM in my opinion... but I guess it's easier to categorise and group together such music if the genre does have a name, regardless of what it is. I guess the main issue with genres in general though is that it encourages people to stop combining ideas from different subcultures and stick to just one for a given album...

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:13 PM, sweepstakes said:

I like this idea that you can consciously combine influences.

It's quite a fun exercise to pick two or more nice but disparate songs, albums or even whole genres you like, try to picture a hybrid of the feeling/vibe of the two, and then make something a bit like it. But then, no matter what I set out to do, I usually end up getting carried away on various whims that I didn't anticipate, and (for example) slip a breakbeat into what was meant to be a Radiophonic Workshop kinda sounding track. I guess the idea of combining things works well to actually get me to start something, anything... but once I get in the zone, I (probably rightfully) forget all that and just add what I think the music calls for at the time. So I guess I'd recommend that approach as much as any. :)

  On 11/23/2012 at 11:11 PM, ZoeB said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 6:07 PM, sweepstakes said:

It's almost like a genre into itself. But (because its fans tend to be nerds rather than hoards of teenage girls and mediocre music journalists) it doesn't have a genre name and usually just gets referred to as "analord ripoff".

 

I believe at least one person (maybe more?) has attempted to get people to start calling it A&D (analogue and digital), although that seems like as vague a name as IDM in my opinion...

 

terrible name!

Analank would be better. that's a combo-word I just made up. lol

I think maybe braindance would be a better fit.

  On 11/22/2012 at 10:17 PM, feltcher said:

http://youtu.be/NJHsT8kEyzs

fuck this thread, but thank you feltcher for posting this. I had not seen this video... amazing. wish I could have been there.

i only listen to post-analordstep

sorry guys i was just trolling. the analord knockoffs are actually pretty cool. AND, i think 'A&D' is a good genre name. it should be its own sub-forum, and someone should set up a www for it too.

www.analoganddigital.coms