Sean Booth quote about being surprised by how similar electronic musicians sound to one another..?

one reason why most people make music that sounds like someone else's so much, is because they want to be successful. so they emulate something that was successful. it would also be a lot easier to try to perfect something, some kind of style, that already exists, rather than first inventing a style and then perfecting that. another reason is fear of looking like a weirdo for doing something different, which on the other side of that is the fact that 'consumers'/listeners out there actually expect things to sound similar for many of the same reasons and some entirely different sets of reasons. a lot, if not most people use music as a tool for socializing (why watmm exists). that kind of depends on stuff being similar so that people who then relate to those similar things can feel like they relate to each other. also, maybe some people just lack imagination.

yeah it's a lot of theoretical reasons, but like has been said, it's pretty crazy to think that music could sound literally like ANYTHING and it always sounds pretty similar. so there obviously would have to be a lot of strong reasons. few people here seem to agree with me if i mention how in the grand scheme, most autechre albums are actually very, VERY much alike. but compare them to traditional oriental, jazz, classical, every type of music made. from that wide view every autechre would sound like the same thing.

most people don't know what creativity is.

  On 1/21/2013 at 3:14 PM, lumpenprol said:

I find VS interesting, and I don't listen to his music much. I think he's a true original (original *something*). Almost seems like an idiot savant of sorts...

someone, maybe awepittance, cited Tycho as an "artisan" or "craftsman" producer - talented, puts out quality releases but not objectively novel or innovative - I'd lump VS in there too

  On 1/24/2013 at 4:53 PM, MisterE said:

one reason why most people make music that sounds like someone else's so much, is because they want to be successful. so they emulate something that was successful. it would also be a lot easier to try to perfect something, some kind of style, that already exists, rather than first inventing a style and then perfecting that. another reason is fear of looking like a weirdo for doing something different, which on the other side of that is the fact that 'consumers'/listeners out there actually expect things to sound similar for many of the same reasons and some entirely different sets of reasons. a lot, if not most people use music as a tool for socializing (why watmm exists). that kind of depends on stuff being similar so that people who then relate to those similar things can feel like they relate to each other. also, maybe some people just lack imagination.

 

yeah it's a lot of theoretical reasons, but like has been said, it's pretty crazy to think that music could sound literally like ANYTHING and it always sounds pretty similar. so there obviously would have to be a lot of strong reasons. few people here seem to agree with me if i mention how in the grand scheme, most autechre albums are actually very, VERY much alike. but compare them to traditional oriental, jazz, classical, every type of music made. from that wide view every autechre would sound like the same thing.

Good points, but whether autechre sounds the same or not I think depends on the level of listening and attention to details the listener gives. A lot of rock, jazz and classical can sound the same, but aren't REALLY, when you learn the nuances. Maybe on first listen you can tell something is different, but not at the same depth as someone who has listened to all of it a lot. Then suddenly they become wildly different.

slap a "the 'chre incoonaboola" label on autechre's incunabula and who would know the difference?

Nice thread. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said here, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff... :)

  On 1/24/2013 at 4:53 PM, MisterE said:

it's pretty crazy to think that music could sound literally like ANYTHING and it always sounds pretty similar.

I'm trying to work out what are inherently true principles based on things like acoustics and psychoacoustics, and what's arbitrary. For example, I think higher frequency things can move quicker and more gracefully than slower frequency ones, in terms of how many notes you can cram into a certain amount of time, so hi-hats or equivalents can get more intricate than kick drums, should you wish to make something vaguely like a Krupa drum kit (as pretty much everyone does at this point), and melodies in a high footing can be more intricate than basslines. I haven't come up with much else that seems inherent though, besides frequencies that are multiples of each other sounding pleasant together, making for good harmonies.

But then, you end up exploring alternative tuning systems just as Wendy Carlos did, and that way madness lies...

  On 1/24/2013 at 7:04 PM, Alcofribas said:

slap a "the 'chre incoonaboola" label on autechre's incunabula and who would know the difference?

pls do this.

  On 1/24/2013 at 5:40 PM, coax said:

Good points, but whether autechre sounds the same or not I think depends on the level of listening and attention to details the listener gives. A lot of rock, jazz and classical can sound the same, but aren't REALLY, when you learn the nuances. Maybe on first listen you can tell something is different, but not at the same depth as someone who has listened to all of it a lot. Then suddenly they become wildly different.

but a nuance is just that, a nuance. it means subtle difference, which implies similarity and is exactly what i said. i mean, it's a given that they won'tl have the same track over and over, 10 times, across every release. the details happen differently, yes, but the overall sound is so very similar. if you could map out all music ever made, and graph it in terms of relation, most autechre would be in one tiny little area on a huge map. maybe not quite a thimble in an ocean, but that kind of thing.

the same exact logic can be applied here. even with all the tools available to autechre in this modern world where they could make literally any sound, any style or any infinite number of concepts for track composition, instead i have to listen very closely to find subtle nuances. and everyone here will still say that exai sounds radically different from every other ae album, just like they say about all the others. as if they are completely re-inventing the concept of music with each release.

I can't even tell the difference between one genre and another these days, d&b sounds like a slightly fast version of breakbeat sounds like a slightly faster two-step version of dubstep sounds like a slow version of electro house sounds like a 4-2-t-f version of chillout sounds like a slow version of d&b...

  On 1/24/2013 at 7:16 PM, MisterE said:

  On 1/24/2013 at 5:40 PM, coax said:

Good points, but whether autechre sounds the same or not I think depends on the level of listening and attention to details the listener gives. A lot of rock, jazz and classical can sound the same, but aren't REALLY, when you learn the nuances. Maybe on first listen you can tell something is different, but not at the same depth as someone who has listened to all of it a lot. Then suddenly they become wildly different.

but a nuance is just that, a nuance. it means subtle difference, which implies similarity and is exactly what i said. i mean, it's a given that they won'tl have the same track over and over, 10 times, across every release. the details happen differently, yes, but the overall sound is so very similar. if you could map out all music ever made, and graph it in terms of relation, most autechre would be in one tiny little area on a huge map. maybe not quite a thimble in an ocean, but that kind of thing.

 

the same exact logic can be applied here. even with all the tools available to autechre in this modern world where they could make literally any sound, any style or any infinite number of concepts for track composition, instead i have to listen very closely to find subtle nuances. and everyone here will still say that exai sounds radically different from every other ae album, just like they say about all the others. as if they are completely re-inventing the concept of music with each release.

Even if each release isn't totally different, they're different enough from everything else that's out there and strong enough to hold that space that it's almost like every release arrives to set the record straight.

surely the aim is to produce new states of feeling within the listener, rather than just music that sounds as freaky as possible. The idea that you can't generate fresh feelings or ideas within established paradigms (guitar/bass/drums, as one example) is hugely suspect imo.

Sure, you're more likely to sound like someone else if you work in such a fashion, but everyone is working within a certain set of parameters, even Autechre. It's all just a matter of degrees really.

  On 1/21/2013 at 6:30 AM, Awepittance said:

 

FYI, that quote above is not the quote i'm talking about, but sort of close. Autechre seems really keen on Locust, who i think more people on Watmm ought to check out. My friend has an LP of his from the mid 90s that actually sounds a lot like later (analord) period Aphex twin. Guy is definitely an underrated innovator.

New Locust out soon on Emego :

https://soundcloud.com/editionsmego/locust-strobes-emego-162

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

Music sounds like music. Art is art. WTF

PS. Locust is the shit.

I seem to remember him talking about this on the hafler trio guy's podcast (simply superior right?).

It had mostly to do with iOS and mobile/touch devices and the music making apps available on the platform. Something along the lines of there being a thousand apps that all aim to make the same kinds of sounds, which are just the same kinds of sounds that basic hardware and now software synths have been doing for decades.

Not sure if this is what awe was referring to, but either way I think it is a relevant point (and one I tend to mostly agree with).

just skimmed the thread, but...

I think lots of people just tend to make the music they like to listen to. There's nothing wrong with that even if it does lead to "samey" sounds. Experimenting isn't for everyone, partly for this reason. When I started playing piano (7/yo), it was because I REALLY wanted to be able to play Bohemian Rhapsody. Sadly, after I learned how to play it (and a handful of other Queen songs I adored as a kid), I quit playing entirely. I took up music again as a teenager when I was getting into punk rock, but not once have I picked up an instrument with no idea about its capabilities or any reference point for what kinds of music it can really fit into -- I like to learn by example. Experimenting is fine and dandy, but often leads me to unintelligible bullshit. Derivative music almost seems like a joy in comparison to a bunch of people with no particular musical intention patching up noodly atonal sequences and claiming they're onto some sort of grand new musical paradigm, something that "experimental artists" are a bit too eager to say. So let em be samey, it's for the best.

, i'm outta here

  On 1/26/2013 at 1:39 AM, nerv said:

I seem to remember him talking about this on the hafler trio guy's podcast (simply superior right?).

 

It had mostly to do with iOS and mobile/touch devices and the music making apps available on the platform. Something along the lines of there being a thousand apps that all aim to make the same kinds of sounds, which are just the same kinds of sounds that basic hardware and now software synths have been doing for decades.

 

Not sure if this is what awe was referring to, but either way I think it is a relevant point (and one I tend to mostly agree with).

yeah i remeber that, it's true and i totally agree with it as well. I'm waiting (im)patiently for software companies in general to stop going back into the past to emulate analog synths and compressors and shit. It's actually pretty depressing to see how little genuine synthesis innovation is being pushed right now across the board. Modular synth manufactures are at the tip of the spear as far as innovation but even most of them are still producing bread and butter common synthesis units.

As far as i'm concerned the last huge technical innovations with synthesis in the last decade are Yamaha's Vocaloid, Melodyne's DNA, Elektron's machine drum and Logic Pro's Sculpture synth.

  On 1/26/2013 at 1:59 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 1/26/2013 at 1:39 AM, nerv said:

I seem to remember him talking about this on the hafler trio guy's podcast (simply superior right?).

 

It had mostly to do with iOS and mobile/touch devices and the music making apps available on the platform. Something along the lines of there being a thousand apps that all aim to make the same kinds of sounds, which are just the same kinds of sounds that basic hardware and now software synths have been doing for decades.

 

Not sure if this is what awe was referring to, but either way I think it is a relevant point (and one I tend to mostly agree with).

 

yeah i remeber that, it's true and i totally agree with it as well. I'm waiting (im)patiently for software companies in general to stop going back into the past to emulate analog synths and compressors and shit. It's actually pretty depressing to see how little genuine synthesis innovation is being pushed right now across the board. Modular synth manufactures are at the tip of the spear as far as innovation but even most of them are still producing bread and butter common synthesis units.

As far as i'm concerned the last huge technical innovations with synthesis in the last decade are Yamaha's Vocaloid, Melodyne's DNA, Elektron's machine drum and Logic Pro's Sculpture synth.

was the haken continuum fingerboard not innovative? (not a sarcastic question, it just seemed like a massive innovation to me with tons of applications in the right hands (or fingers lol))

wasn't that out in the late 90s? I was really only talking synthesis and DSP sound technologies, which as far as i can see are in a stagnant state. The most forward advancing thing about the whole world seems to be convenience and being able to do things in real-time easier, which is nice but definitely not an ideal for me.

  On 1/26/2013 at 2:10 AM, Awepittance said:

wasn't that out in the late 90s? I was really only talking synthesis and DSP sound technologies, which as far as i can see are in a stagnant state. The most forward advancing thing about the whole world seems to be convenience and being able to do things in real-time easier, which is nice but definitely not an ideal for me.

I think it was developed in the late 90s but released in early 2000s. I definitely hear your message.

All of the new technologies and all these ipod ipad i-whatever apps that "make anyone a musician" (so the advertisements go) is really just saturating the music pool with shit, in my opinion.

That's neither here nor there.... I know what you mean RE synthesis and DSP. There hasn't been much innovation. I thought Reason's synthesizers were extremely powerful (ala malstrom and Thor) but not sure I would consider it innovative.

boils down to.. I agree with you.

cheers

it sort of goes back to my CGI comparison, that CGI seems to have continued on a linear advancing curve ever since it hit the scene. Audio DSP on the other hand ebbs and flows, and seems to be more defined by trend and novelty than hitting the sort of 'uncanny valley' or moving beyond it. We're still stuck in this odd precarious world of 100GB sampling classical symphony libraries when a keyboard synthesizer was made in 1994 by Yamaha that sounds VERY realistic and can do most symphonic instruments. It was only duophonic, but this was 1994. Imagine what 15 years of DSP development and increased processing could accomplish with the same technology. Or if they hadn't dropped the ball on vocaloid, it was invented in 2004 yet the algorithms in it were never advanced anymore past it's release. IF teams of people had continued working on it until right now 2013, we'd have very impressive realistic dynamic speech synthesis that could fool people into thinking it's real. I get bummed out sometimes about my lack of programming and DSP knowledge. It's the biggest regret i have in life, not learning how to code and make some of these ideas myself.

  On 1/26/2013 at 2:14 AM, StephenG said:

All of the new technologies and all these ipod ipad i-whatever apps that "make anyone a musician" (so the advertisements go) is really just saturating the music pool with shit, in my opinion.

I used to think I understood that argument, but as time goes by I increasingly disagree with it. There are an innumerable number of new factors that affect this "music pool", including the increasingly varied tastes and experiences of the audience/consumers. That usually sifts out most of the banal shit fairly quickly at a local level.

Of course, some of it doesn't and rises to the top via LCD promotional marketing, but even that is marketing skill that breaks a non-musical paradigm half the time. But yeah, Id be hard pressed to find a huge name on a world tour because they can mix on garageband in real time or whatever (the caveat is doing this without a multi-million dollar marketing team, that changes the game)

Sex has been done zillions of times. Let's try something new. How about screwdrivers and wrenches in the bedroom? Er, no thanks. Elephants? No.

Mmm, burger. Been done millions of times. Let's do something new. Let's take a bread roll and put a 50 raw carrots in it. Add some metal shavings. Mmm, burger, bluegh disgusting and my mouth is bleeding.

Electronic music, been done over and over again. Let's try something new. Let's call it IDMz lulz. Arghh my ears.

I admire people who know what questions to ask and think things through from first principles rather than get spoon fed, though I sometimes act rude towards people like that because I disagree with their conclusions. Oops. Kid 606 is somebody who gets that there's something wrong but his answers are the worst I have ever encountered. See his album "songs about fucking steve albini", which is the best example of "IDM" i.e. shite ever invented.

Speaking of Steve Albini, he was asked on the forum of his studio whether he liked Aphex Twin/Autechre/Mu ziq and there was a discussion there that was quite interesting. His view was in the minority on his own forum and everybody was trying to convince him to like Aphex Twin. One of the truest things he said was:

"As the idiom developed, the music became more and more about the novelty

of certain sounds and treatments, ridiculously trivial aspects like

tempo and choice of samples, and the public personae of the makers. It

became a race to novelty. I find that kind of evolution beneath

triviality. It is a decorative, not substantive, evolution."

I'm not sure if I've understand this correctly, but I take it to mean that:

chasing new techniques and newness is a waste of time

what an artist should be doing is trying his best to create something beautiful and lasting

I.m.o. Modern art today is about putting a blocked toilet on display and winning first prize

What art should be is real aesthetics and what that means is gorgeousness is more important than newness

What about originality I hear you ask? What's the difference between originality and trivial novelty? My answer is, if I knew the answer to that then I'd be a millionaire

I can't prove it but I believe that if you chase beauty in art for long enough and place it as a higher ideal than other things such as technology and fashion, then original things will happen quite by accident. Technology and fashion affect things, it wouldn't be realistic to expect otherwise unless pursuing a hermitic lifestyle in the mountains somewhere, but beauty trumps all other factors.

The problem is that you can make something beautiful that is utterly cynical and unoriginal. (You could, for instance, take two bars or an 80's song, pitch it down and loop it )

There is more to it than beauty, and it could be argued that beauty per se isn't even necessary.

As someone mentioned earlier, the goal of art/music/poetry/etc is to evoke something in the viewer/reader/listener. If you look at (arguably) great writers whose work exhibited novelty (e.g. James Joyce, e.e. cummings, David Foster Wallace), the novelty was a function of the creativity.

I think, once again, Albini is wrong.

Then, we don't agree about the definition of the word beauty