Autechre production methods speculation

edit: nvm, fuck it

also, ignatius, I don't think anyone's saying you have to value or pay attention to anything. just that ppl should just say they don't like something instead of solipsistically (is that a word lol) dismissing it as bs and assuming that the creator had some ulterior motive and doesn't actually care how it sounds.

  On 6/24/2019 at 3:23 PM, xox said:

tl;dr

I do NOT think that everything that comes out of one's ass is art! Stand that "anything goes" just doesn't apply to me. But that's me.... Is that a narrow view? Only by my definition of art. Is my definition of art narrow? YES, it is! 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Spoiler

 

Was away from my comp for a few days, sorry...

Ok, I threw the bomb and got the facepalm. Deserved i guess! okokokok

Anyway,.... My criticisms of the authors and their works and such music (which music i have on my hd, had them on cds and i do know their works) were mostly in the sense that they went "full retard" with their works (which to me equals to ''nonsense'') and that's all!  Do I think their works are worthless? No! I think they have a great value in history of computer art but not a great musical one, sorry and that's a big IMO. It's just IMO...

So, as you can see Im throwing bombs again! My goal with these bombs is for a reader to understand that other people understand complex concepts differently then he is. surprise, surprise! For example, concepts such as art, music and artistic value .... Furthermore, questions such as what's music and what't not and is there an objective view in this?, what is the aim of music and art in general?, question about the motives for presenting works to other people?, how to evaluate the work?, what's the connection between subjectivity and objectivity in art and emotionally and intellectually in art?, question of the transcendence in art?, the concept of time in music in perception and abstraction of time and music?, priority and complexity vs expressiveness?, what's the source of syntax and semantics in music?, question of 'synthesis per se' in music?, what's the connection of perception it self and knowledge in music?, determinism and chaos?, ... and so on. When ppl can generally agree on these issues and questions, they're able to understand each other quite well and as i know many of you by now and i sense a great dissonance in The Force and it makes me sad in a way...

Anyhow... We talked about it before when i gave my references in music and philosophy and other fields and no one replied with a single word, so i really dont have time nor energy to go through all that sheesh again, for nothing... Leave Britney alone!

 

Expand  

You should have simply said that you don't like that stuff instead of shitting on something of which you know nothing about. If you actually bothered to read the links I posted then you would have realized that there is a whole philosophy behind the works which I posted. I mean it's not just "I am just gonna fucking blast this shit to confuse everyone and call it art".

But whatever, this is internet, blah blah, so who cares in the end eh?

and tbh I only have the foggiest idea about what the process is behind that Tone AI thing. I just enjoy it because it's gnarly af. And it's not some angry 'catharsis' as some other person threw shade on it with that backhanded description. I enjoy it for insane patterns and anti-patterns.

  On 6/24/2019 at 8:29 PM, hello spiral said:

I enjoy it for insane patterns and anti-patterns.

It usually comes down to that. Anyway, Tone and some other guy developed a software that screws up with mp3s, then Tone played that software to train neural network.

Yeah I had the mp3 one on CD, that was great too!

Solo For Wounded CD is essential.

def

This too:

"You wanna be able to fully appreciate the chre aesthetics? Better read sum Schopenhauer first!"

Arthur Schopenhauer

Hecker+Tone - nuff said.

  On 6/24/2019 at 8:17 PM, Freak of the week said:

You should have simply said that you don't like that stuff instead of shitting on something of which you know nothing about. If you actually bothered to read the links I posted then you would have realized that there is a whole philosophy behind the works which I posted. I mean it's not just "I am just gonna fucking blast this shit to confuse everyone and call it art".

But whatever, this is internet, blah blah, so who cares in the end eh?

what part didnt i understand? and what philosophy? that's not philosophy of music! google that term and you'll find it, being ''absolute music'' or not. also, try introduction to the topic like works by carl dahlhaus and hans heinrich eggebrecht

now, the first link talks about specific methods of stochastic composition, right? that's not music! at least tell me, at which point was the author at 'action-reaction loop' during the process? it also talks about sound and stochastic synthesis. also, that's not music. m-e-t-h-o-d-s, like all academic works for the last millions of yrs. it's just pushing some non-musical plans and m-e-t-h-o-d-s, to do what? series of sound coming out of speakers, yes, but that's not music. sound alone is not music, nor is series of sound music, not even so called ''organized sound''. sound has potential to become music but i dont think that was the plan here anyway. that's why i generally hate academic 'art', where the essence of art is always somewhere in the background but their precious 'i'm so clever m-e-t-h-o-d-s' in the foreground. bravo for the effort and math, zero for artistic depth and creativity!

copy/past from the second link: ''This Thesis proposes three main objectives: (i) to provide the concept of a new generalized non-standard synthesis model that would provide the framework for incorporating other non-standard synthesis approaches; (ii) to explore dynamic sound modeling through the application of new non-standard synthesis techniques and procedures; and (iii) to experiment with dynamic sound synthesis for the creation of novel sound objects.''

--- do i have to say anything about this 'music'?! again, just pushing some intellectualized academic agendas!

i sometimes find such works interesting as an idea, very rarely as music but if you like it as music, good for you! but, saying that it's more complicated than autechre?! im sorry but you're not correct here because you're trying to compare apples with rocks and that's what hit my nerve!

  On 6/24/2019 at 8:09 PM, tneuvm said:

edit: nvm, fuck it

 

also, ignatius, I don't think anyone's saying you have to value or pay attention to anything. just that ppl should just say they don't like something instead of solipsistically (is that a word lol) dismissing it as bs and assuming that the creator had some ulterior motive and doesn't actually care how it sounds.

oh i agree.  

  On 6/24/2019 at 9:32 PM, jaderpansen said:

"You wanna be able to fully appreciate the chre aesthetics? Better read sum Schopenhauer first!"

Arthur Schopenhauer

lol  

but that's the point really! to appreciate autechre and in all its depth you dont have to read academic thesis that comes as a supplement to the music

I briefly spoke to Yasunao Tone during ATP 2003 after his performance, he had told me he was using scotch tape on the cds, whilst munching a filthy hot dog.

  On 6/24/2019 at 9:24 PM, hello spiral said:

def

This too:

 

Expand  

this is the one that gets the "hey something is wrong w/your dial up modem" joke from people. 

fwiw i've let moduar patches play out for 30 minutes or so that sound a lot like this digital munging and it's fascinating once in a while. i've rarely recorded any of it because it essentially already exists. 

  On 6/24/2019 at 9:50 PM, IOS said:

I briefly spoke to Yasunao Tone during ATP 2003 after his performance, he had told me he was using scotch tape on the cds, whilst munching a filthy hot dog.

heh lush

  On 6/24/2019 at 9:44 PM, xox said:

what part didnt i understand? and what philosophy? that's not philosophy of music! google that term and you'll find it, being ''absolute music'' or not. also, try introduction to the topic like works by carl dahlhaus and hans heinrich eggebrecht

now, the first link talks about specific methods of stochastic composition, right? that's not music! at least tell me, at which point was the author at 'action-reaction loop' during the process? it also talks about sound and stochastic synthesis. also, that's not music. m-e-t-h-o-d-s, like all academic works for the last millions of yrs. it's just pushing some non-musical plans and m-e-t-h-o-d-s, to do what? series of sound coming out of speakers, yes, but that's not music. sound alone is not music, nor is series of sound music, not even so called ''organized sound''. sound has potential to become music but i dont think that was the plan here anyway. that's why i generally hate academic 'art', where the essence of art is always somewhere in the background but their precious 'i'm so clever m-e-t-h-o-d-s' in the foreground. bravo for the effort and math, zero for artistic depth and creativity!

copy/past from the second link: ''This Thesis proposes three main objectives: (i) to provide the concept of a new generalized non-standard synthesis model that would provide the framework for incorporating other non-standard synthesis approaches; (ii) to explore dynamic sound modeling through the application of new non-standard synthesis techniques and procedures; and (iii) to experiment with dynamic sound synthesis for the creation of novel sound objects.''

--- do i have to say anything about this 'music'?! again, just pushing some intellectualized academic agendas!

i sometimes find it interesting as an idea but if you like it as music, good for you! but, saying that it's more complicated than autechre?! im sorry but you're not correct here because you're trying to compare apples with rocks and that's what hit my nerve!

Expand  

Looks like somebody is triggered. 

Anyway, since you are into philosophy, I would recommend you to read Formalized Music by Xenakis (it can be downloaded from *ahem* certain Russian sites). He mentions Herakleitos and Plato a lot. At the beginning of the chapter "More Thorough Stochastic Music" he says "Indeed, the challenge is to create music, starting, in so far as it is possible, from a minimum number of premises but which would be "interesting" from a contemporary aesthetical sensitivity, without borrowing or getting trapped in known paths." A bit later he says "Therefore, we find ourselves in front of an attempt, as objective as possible, of creating an automated art, without any human interference except at the start, only in order to give the initial impulse and a few premises, like in the case of the Demiourgos in Plato's Politicos, or Yahweh in the Old Testament, or even of Nothingness in the Big Bang Theory." Why did I quote him? To show you that he actually has a philosophy. In his aforementioned book there is a whole chapter called "Towards a Philosophy of Music". He also respects people like Bach and Beethoven, so it's not like he just hates everything that's old, in case you had that impression.

In the chapter "New Proposals in Microsound Structure" he mentions the failure of the classical Fourier theory (additive synthesis) to  convincingly synthesize the sounds of the classical instruments (remember that this was pre-FM) and he also explains what are in his opinion some of the causes of that failure. So he says "We shall raise the contradiction, and by doing so we hope to open a new path in microsound synthesis research - one that without pretending to be able to simulate already known sounds, will nevertheless launch music, its psychophysiology, and acoustics in a direction that is quite interesting and unexpected." And then comes that disorder concept. So it was like " the usual approach doesn't work, let's try a different one and see what we can come up with". He is not pretending that his approach will solve everything, such an approach doesn't exist.

Re: that whole "advanced" business - maybe I chose the wrong word, I admit that. I like to shill academic music around here because I think that it is worth shilling, and that it's not just a technical wankery (at least I don't want it to be). And I want to point out here that I don't think that everything "academic" is good, on the contrary, a lot of it is boring. Same as with the "normal" music. What does the word "academic music" even mean? It means that it was made by somebody who has a formal training in music, and that there is an artistic goal behind it. Is that a good thing? It depends, like everything else. Some people think that the music theory is just a limiting factor, and that it has to be avoided at all costs. I think that the theory can help you understand some things better and work out some compositional aspects faster than without the theory. But there is always of course the matter of your personal taste, none of us are robots. What I have discovered, listening to the academic stuff that I think is good, is that it is really rich in sounds and rewarding if you pay close attention. In the end I will just post these two FM-heavy pieces which I think are brilliant:

/rant

P. S. This is now officially "Academic Electronic Music Thread".

Ah yes, triggered! I know it’s foolish of me  ... i guess i still suffer from intellectual narcissism. I thought i got rid of it by now! Lol

Thnx for the recommendations! Im familiar with some of it from other sources but I will loom into them! 

  On 6/24/2019 at 10:39 PM, Freak of the week said:

 

/rant

P. S. This is now officially "Academic Electronic Music Thread".

 

 

Expand  

i like the stuff around 6:25.. those weird sounding synthetic horns. nice tones. syfy

i think in the warp demo tapes they prolly used a lot of synthesizers and drum machines

Hot take

I’m convinced they run effect sends though VCAs and Ring Modulators where they can ring mod any element of a track with any other element in a track and then give it it’s own separate rhythmic pattern. I think they also audio rate modulate things with human voice samples somewhat frequently. Gives things that R2D2 “I can’t tell if thats a drum or a synth line” quality. I think you can hear these tricks all over their body of work. 

this thread delivers in many ways

i heard they use computers

They create complex patches and sequence them together to create disjointed crap, unfortunately they don't realise this and continue to release "cool" complex crap as if they were pioneers in their field. Hopefully they get the squarepusher virus and return to their roots.

  On 11/25/2019 at 11:25 PM, Empirix said:

They create complex patches and sequence them together to create disjointed crap, unfortunately they don't realise this and continue to release "cool" complex crap as if they were pioneers in their field. Hopefully they get the squarepusher virus and return to their roots.

Nice trolling!

still, someone shot him in the head!