Theoretical Analysis of classic IDM tunes

  On 1/26/2013 at 5:08 PM, osobjornmedved said:

I think most theory is bullshit.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Osobjornmedved, it's this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T6qS8Jh3gE

Sorry Limpy, I'll leave my bullshit out of your thread now.

  On 1/26/2013 at 8:24 PM, Gocab said:

Sorry Limpy, I'll leave my bullshit out of your thread now.

It's cool fool do yo thang

  On 1/24/2013 at 9:39 PM, Gocab said:

the sounds he plays at the beginning are from a dx7 right LimpyLoo???

Yeah definitely FM shit going on.

Sounds like 125-130bpm.

  On 1/26/2013 at 7:03 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I think most theory is bullshit.

 

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

asshat remark. music theory is largely meaningless nonsense. sorry but most people who bang on about various technical aspects of a track and postulate that this or that was done with this or that kind of filter etc - in my experience their music is totally boring and lacking soul: ie what makes good music good. fuck music theory.

9 times out of ten though a particular good melody, or harmonic sequence that you think sounds great will follow the basic and accepted rules of compositional construction.

wether you are aware of it or not, it will be sitting there in the background working away like a musical form of grammar.

I agree, I just don't believe you should think about it too much. whatever happens, happens.

bcm, you silly bear!!!

  On 1/27/2013 at 2:17 PM, BCM said:

I agree, I just don't believe you should think about it too much. whatever happens, happens.

do you think about how to articulate a verbal phrase??? well maybe you do... lol

same happens with music, if you grow with the language, it just comes out, and there's no way denying there's science in it dude!!!

great composers don't think too much about it, it's inherent, they simply speak it...

  On 1/27/2013 at 1:20 PM, BCM said:

 

  On 1/26/2013 at 7:03 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I think most theory is bullshit.

 

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

asshat remark. music theory is largely meaningless nonsense.

Where do people get these ideas?

same place that people pull such gems as "all religions are stupid fairy tales for babies" or "evolution is just a THEORY, man"

that is, they come from the place in the human mind that loves justifying ignorance.

(I say this with respect for both BCM and osobjorn as people -- even more so if they actually both understand enough theory to join in any conversation you might be interested in having, Limpy -- it's just the idea of dismissing a body of knowledge without understanding it that I find distasteful)

that said, I do think that music theory can often fall short when talking about experimental music. It's called experimental for a reason. :P There are usually bits of theory that can be discussed in any song, but something like...

is a lot more interesting to analyze without theory getting in the way (IMO). I'm not sure any theoretical discussion of this track would enhance my understanding of what Jega was getting at here. We could write out the rhythms in sheet notation but it wouldn't really get the feeling across, and it'd probably be a more difficult way of recreating the track than just listening and getting an intuitive understanding of what's going on.

Music Theory is like Science in that It is not meant to prescribe, but rather describe.

Calling it bullshit is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. It's like calling History bullshit.

Also, when most people hear Music Theory they think of circle-of-fifths and relative minor and a bunch of admittedly dull stuff. But Music Theory addresses everything from Timbre to Psychoacoustics to you name it. For instance,

  On 1/27/2013 at 7:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

bcm, you silly bear!!!

 

  On 1/27/2013 at 2:17 PM, BCM said:

I agree, I just don't believe you should think about it too much. whatever happens, happens.

do you think about how to articulate a verbal phrase??? well maybe you do... lol

 

same happens with music, if you grow with the language, it just comes out, and there's no way denying there's science in it dude!!!

 

great composers don't think too much about it, it's inherent, they simply speak it...

actually its pretty rare to read of one of the great composers not spending a good portion of their early life studying at a respected conservatoire, or at least with a great tutor, which would entail 5-10 years of studing the theory to an extremely complex degree. there are hardly any self taught great composers.

  On 2/2/2013 at 8:48 PM, messiaen said:

 

 

  On 1/27/2013 at 7:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

great composers don't think too much about it, it's inherent, they simply speak it...

actually its pretty rare to read of one of the great composers not spending a good portion of their early life studying at a respected conservatoire, or at least with a great tutor, which would entail 5-10 years of studing the theory to an extremely complex degree. there are hardly any self taught great composers.

 

 

i do believe we're saying the same thing.

  On 1/27/2013 at 7:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

same happens with music, if you grow with the language

i thought you were saying they dont think about it as in they dont learn it, is all.

  On 2/2/2013 at 8:56 PM, messiaen said:

i thought you were saying they dont think about it as in they dont learn it, is all.

that's just crazy

Foil by Autechre.

This track is really cool. I like that first synth that goes bwoowoowoowoowoowowoo etc. Really cool. And then there's this really cool part where it kinda goes down a few keys. Really cool.

Also, the beat is really cool. Flange and stuff on those drums. Really cool sounding. Nothing really happens in the track, but it's still really cool sounding.

Sorry I don't know a whole lot of music terms. It's a really cool track though.

I'll be back to describe more æ tracks.

The bwoowoowoowoowoowowoo part is my favorite part as well.

i like it when it friendly foils me! that's my favorite part!!!

  On 2/3/2013 at 10:36 PM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 1/28/2013 at 12:25 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/27/2013 at 1:20 PM, BCM said:

 

  On 1/26/2013 at 7:03 PM, LimpyLoo said:

  Quote

osobjornmedved:

 

I think most theory is bullshit.

 

 

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

asshat remark. music theory is largely meaningless nonsense.

 

Where do people get these ideas?

 

Some people don't need to "get" their ideas from an external source. They come up with them themselves.

 

The only perfect metaphor for a thing is the thing itself. You can describe music with words all day long and you still lack the essence. Yeah, that's something I came up with myself. But I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

What is it I'm talking about again? Christmas trees? Yeah!

Explain to my why you think theory is bullshit.

Actually, explain to me what you think theory is.

  On 2/3/2013 at 10:52 PM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 2/3/2013 at 10:39 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/3/2013 at 10:36 PM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 1/28/2013 at 12:25 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/27/2013 at 1:20 PM, BCM said:

 

  On 1/26/2013 at 7:03 PM, LimpyLoo said:

  Quote

osobjornmedved:

 

I think most theory is bullshit.

 

 

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

asshat remark. music theory is largely meaningless nonsense.

 

Where do people get these ideas?

 

Some people don't need to "get" their ideas from an external source. They come up with them themselves.

 

The only perfect metaphor for a thing is the thing itself. You can describe music with words all day long and you still lack the essence. Yeah, that's something I came up with myself. But I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

What is it I'm talking about again? Christmas trees? Yeah!

 

Explain to my why you think theory is bullshit.

 

Actually, explain to me what you think theory is.

 

 

It, for some, is a prescriptive way to make "good" music. For others, it's a descriptive way of just theorizing how certain music was arrived at. I say it's bullshit not to say it doesn't exist, or there's no basis to it, but that it's a waste of time as a listener. Sure, it's useful to have some knowledge of cadence, meter, counterpoint, harmony, etc, but that's only a means to an end. "I have these tools, and now I can make this kind of music." The classical methods of analyzing music don't really apply to abstract electronic music: "Oh, he put this strange child laughing here, and it repeats regularly. This demonstrates the laughing-child principle."

 

You are incredibly condescending and clearly made no attempt to read my original remarks in their entirety. You just latched onto the first sentence.

 

 

 

Just because you can dissect music using traditional rubrics doesn't mean you appreciate it more than a "naive" listener. I'm far from anti-intellectual... I'm just a relativist when it comes to art. I fucking hate when people rate albums, especially Pitchfork's pseudo-scientific 100 point scale... "Oh, I entered the musics into the originality and technique analyzator, and found that this record scores a 7.9 on the value scale!"

 

The fuck?

There are so many presumptions in there I don't know where to begin.

But like I've said before many times, theory shouldn't be taken as prescriptive, but descriptive.

Theory is simply knowledge of what has come before. If you want a melody to sound like McCoy Tyner, then if you go study McCoy Tyner's music then you'll know what concepts he's applying. Same with charcoal techniques or architecture or whatever.

Who said anything about enjoying music more than a naive listener? I certainly didn't.

So yeah that word does not mean what you think it means.

  On 2/3/2013 at 11:18 PM, osobjornmedved said:

My analysis did nothing. Do you have a better analysis of this track? I would love to read some mental masturbation.

I am not one of those people that thinks that analysis heightens appreciation of music. That is not the point of this thread.

I come from a world of music where people like to study. Study composition, study technique, study their instrument. Personally, I am highly obsessive about studying. And analysis is a huge part of my studies.

For instance, when I hear a drummer doing something I want to be able to do, I analyze it, transcribe it. Practice it. Try to wrap my head around it. And hopefully eat it and gain its powers. The same with guitar playing (though I must say I am sick of playing guitar). The same with synthesis and sound design. The same with composition.

The only thing that's intended is to be better musicians.

  On 2/3/2013 at 11:58 PM, osobjornmedved said:

 

  On 2/3/2013 at 11:51 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/3/2013 at 11:18 PM, osobjornmedved said:

My analysis did nothing. Do you have a better analysis of this track? I would love to read some mental masturbation.

 

I am not one of those people that thinks that analysis heightens appreciation of music. That is not the point of this thread.

 

 

I come from a world of music where people like to study. Study composition, study technique, study their instrument. Personally, I am highly obsessive about studying. And analysis is a huge part of my studies.

 

For instance, when I hear a drummer doing something I want to be able to do, I analyze it, transcribe it. Practice it. Try to wrap my head around it. And hopefully eat it and gain its powers. The same with guitar playing (though I must say I am sick of playing guitar). The same with synthesis and sound design. The same with composition.

 

 

The only thing that's intended is to be better musicians.

 

Fair enough, I'm sorry we butted heads.

So like, can we started dating now?

  On 1/20/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

i always like the F-Ar-T chord

lol

  On 2/2/2013 at 9:12 PM, Ceerial said:

The bwoowoowoowoowoowowoo part is my favorite part as well.

yes.