The NTS Sessions do not sound algorithmic

Sorry for yet another NTS sessions thread, but I felt this subject of 'how' NTS came about vs how it sounds might be an interesting discussion! 

I remember saying in the main thread of the release (when only the first session had aired) that this music sounded even more like it could have been captured from any point in one of Ae's patches - that the content kind of just 'goes', which I did enjoy but I didn't understand how people were finding this less like that than previous recent releases. Well, I realise now that I was totally wrong.

I think I was hearing 'bqbqbq' when I wrote that, so with that specific track (and maybe two or three others) it was maybe understandable that the music 'appeared' so 'generative'. But to me it seems like Ae have gone to great lengths for most of this output NOT to 'sound generative' or like a patch just going or however that should be expressed. However they have programmed their system or patches has made for results that sound anything BUT 'generative'. These tracks are full of 'moments', sound extremely musical and intelligently structured, with pieces having big universal macro shifts as well as more subtle permutations, and where the tracks do feel more improvised the 'jammy' feel is maybe more like listening to a psychedelic improved jazz record or something in its intentionality than a patch endlessly creating variations. It really sounds like stuff from beyond any system - probably because their system is so deep and special! The results are freaky and analog and human sounding.

To be honest, the same goes for Elseq for me. A track like 'pendulu hv moda', '13x0 step', 'freulaeux' or 'mesh cinereaL' or indeed many of them just sound like really well constructed, rich new Autechre tracks, some with even more different big sub-movements or obviously constructed turns than what we know to be non-algorithmically constructed Ae works. Not like generated output that could have gone on forever - which I ALSO love! (This isn't about saying that one is better than the other, because it's all good.)

To be honest, I think the only reason I am aware of the newer material 'sounding' algorithmically driven is because I read interviews where they explained their system and how everything is deriving from that. If I didn't know that I probably wouldn't notice it...(The only one that might have 'given something away' for me being 'Oversteps', where the melodies sound generative, or the live sets because of all their variations.)

​   

Algorithmic =/= genetative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqhLO3SRyXU

lol what does this even mean

maybe it would have been better if they wouldn't have even vaguely explained how they make their music to anyone

  On 5/14/2018 at 3:10 PM, darreichungsform said:

maybe it would have been better if they wouldn't have even vaguely explained how they make their music to anyone

I don't really understand what is the issue with generative music. Steve Reich's music is very generative and doesn't sound inhuman or whatever. Canons, serialism are all generative techniques. Generativity is part of the music history. Listen once to the Missa prolationum from Johannes Ockeghem. It's a highly generative canon.

Generativity means that the music has his own rules to proceed, that the notes played aren't choosed deliberately. But the rules and the input notes are set from the composer.

My favest generative piece -

re: generative != algorithmic, I've exploited stuff on teh modular synth generating nonsense arpeggios, even making one rise with a delay + feedback and another delay which is inverted to make it kind of not want to arpeggiate? That's just a small example but there's plenty of ways to make the music sound more "composed" (as in by hand) than it really is with modular trickery

this thread lol

  On 5/14/2018 at 8:00 PM, NorthernFusion said:

this thread lol

NorthernFusion you shall change your name to NorthSpiral 

  On 5/14/2018 at 8:00 PM, NorthernFusion said:

this thread lol

  On 5/14/2018 at 9:39 PM, D4M0 said:

 

  On 5/14/2018 at 8:00 PM, NorthernFusion said:

this thread lol

Hahahahahaha...

=X

end all sounds vegetative am I right fellas

I LOVE listening to all end while I'm falling asleep...

That and Perlence Subrange 6-36.

Both are great to listen to while drifting into dream reality.

=D

Please read a thread I made regarding my speculations on the design of their system.  It's complete conjecture but that's all anyone has really, though the system I laid out is generic enough that it could theoretically encompass any other generative system.

It's not "algorithmic" as in "push a button and it happens", it's "algorithmic" as in "the abstract generative environment is algorithmically defined and AE play music within those environments".  They said this exact thing in the AE WATMM interviews, almost like they designed a system that makes it so they can metaphorically play GTA and it creates music

https://forum.watmm.com/topic/90748-autechre-production-methods-speculation/

live rock is generative

  On 5/15/2018 at 7:22 AM, dudenorth said:

live rock is generative

generative idle

algorithmic casual

Algorhythm is a dancer.

Greek joke:

Is algorhythm a beat that causes pain?

sup Lianne

yeah they could still have a system where there's rules and then buttons to change those rules to another set of rules or modify the rules as it goes within some range. so it could still have moments, they could still interact with it and it could still be generative at the same time. 

I've got my kabuki suit ready so I can sneak up on the 'chre in dublin in the dark and take a gander at what they does with thems buttons