isopropanol is the shit

It's a good, fun, slappin hard industrial romp. What more is it?

btw i made another mistake: 

 

  On 3/2/2019 at 2:48 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

then L¤ x 4½, before finally hearing the synth riff for the 1st time.

 

i meant L¤ x 2½

 

  On 3/2/2019 at 2:53 PM, hello spiral said:

jfc

 

 

please step aside and hand me your afx fan club badge, sir.

I read a similar analysis on a Mescalinum United track (think it might have been the original We Have Arrived?) way back in the early 90s from an actual book..

to stay on the topic of the rhythmic intro:

 

i've been listening to it again and quickly noticed my first analysis didn't feel right no more. i now perceive the synth riff as starting on the "1" of the cycle, and i think i know why i had so much trouble figuring out what's going on in that intro:

 

i don't think what's rhythmically disorienting can be explained as the first occurence of the L cycle (L¤ x 4) tricking you into perceiving the second occurence of L¤ as the exact repetition of the cycle, leading us to expect its resolution. it may be a factor to some degree but other parameters were overlooked.

 

first, let's clarify things. for the demonstration, let's divide the intro into 16 note bars.

the perception of the "1" of gets confused somewhere between bars 16 and 22. the intro has a binary structure, nothing confusing before reaching bar 16. the question is: do we lose the "1" at bar 16, or at bar 21 (introduction of the synth), or both depending on how you look at it?

 

one disorienting factor i neglected is the presence of bar 15 (the so-called fill for lack of a better word). that extra bar (or the absence of a second one to resolve this specific occurence of L, depending on how you analyze it) makes the whole open hi-hat "interlude" (excuse my poor vocabulary) function like a ternary phrase in an otherwise binary structure. 

the elision or addition of a bar shifts the rhythmic dynamic even though the L skeleton doesn't shift one bit from bar 1 to bar 22, in the sense that L bar 1 is followed invariably by L bar 2 - repeat. which seems puzzling.

 

if bar 15 was followed by L bar 1 instead of L bar 2, the "1" wouldn't get lost. bar 15 would simply function as a delay in the resolution of bar 14, or as the addition of a "cell" to the structure of the tune.

personally, the thing is i'm condemned to expect L bar 1 at bar 16 because otherwise, bar 16 doesn't function as a resolution, it's simply the rest of bar 15, its bar 2 if you will, which is unexpected and feels unresolved.

add to that the undistinguishable - until you reach the "11" of the bar - difference between L bar 1 and L bar 2, and you've got yourself a perfect case of cognitive dissonance.

 

also, besides being rhythmically deceptive, choosing to let L be at that key moment (the open hi-hat "interlude", because it's a ternary phrase in a binary structure, gives momentum to the intro) results in bar 16 feeling so weak (one would expect a drop rather than L bar 2) that the listener's left clueless as to what to expect next.

 

so now i have a sense of relief when the synth's introduced because i found the "1" again, bar 21 functions as an unexpected resolution, as an unexpected drop of the weirdest kind.

for some reason, probably because the ternary "interlude" was followed by an odd number of bars (5), this resolution has a ternary feel to me, in the sense that it almost feels like the 1st bar of a 3-bar pattern that just got repeated.

the whole point of the intro was to get to that moment, that feels very intense and dramatic because our attention is sharper than ever now that we finally come out of the mist, back on our feet, on the "1". 

 

we now see that the synth riff actually starts on the strong bar, but has an unexpected position in the tune, because we were in a state of uncertainty from bars 16 to 21. it's like we were lost for a moment and finally reached our destination without really getting how we got there. 

 

that was long as fuck and laborious. sorry about that.

more next time. feel free to take part.

I preferred it when we discussed on about rare afx pics on this subforum tbh

I think Richard should stop touring and stuff for a bit for the sake of the forum in honesty.

  On 3/4/2019 at 5:59 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

to stay on the topic of the rhythmic intro:

 

i've been listening to it again and quickly noticed my first analysis didn't feel right no more. i now perceive the synth riff as starting on the "1" of the cycle, and i think i know why i had so much trouble figuring out what's going on in that intro:

 

i don't think what's rhythmically disorienting can be explained as the first occurence of the L cycle (L¤ x 4) tricking you into perceiving the second occurence of L¤ as the exact repetition of the cycle, leading us to expect its resolution. it may be a factor to some degree but other parameters were overlooked.

 

first, let's clarify things. for the demonstration, let's divide the intro into 16 note bars.

the perception of the "1" of gets confused somewhere between bars 16 and 22. the intro has a binary structure, nothing confusing before reaching bar 16. the question is: do we lose the "1" at bar 16, or at bar 21 (introduction of the synth), or both depending on how you look at it?

 

one disorienting factor i neglected is the presence of bar 15 (the so-called fill for lack of a better word). that extra bar (or the absence of a second one to resolve this specific occurence of L, depending on how you analyze it) makes the whole open hi-hat "interlude" (excuse my poor vocabulary) function like a ternary phrase in an otherwise binary structure. 

the elision or addition of a bar shifts the rhythmic dynamic even though the L skeleton doesn't shift one bit from bar 1 to bar 22, in the sense that L bar 1 is followed invariably by L bar 2 - repeat. which seems puzzling.

 

if bar 15 was followed by L bar 1 instead of L bar 2, the "1" wouldn't get lost. bar 15 would simply function as a delay in the resolution of bar 14, or as the addition of a "cell" to the structure of the tune.

personally, the thing is i'm condemned to expect L bar 1 at bar 16 because otherwise, bar 16 doesn't function as a resolution, it's simply the rest of bar 15, its bar 2 if you will, which is unexpected and feels unresolved.

add to that the undistinguishable - until you reach the "11" of the bar - difference between L bar 1 and L bar 2, and you've got yourself a perfect case of cognitive dissonance.

 

also, besides being rhythmically deceptive, choosing to let L be at that key moment (the open hi-hat "interlude", because it's a ternary phrase in a binary structure, gives momentum to the intro) results in bar 16 feeling so weak (one would expect a drop rather than L bar 2) that the listener's left clueless as to what to expect next.

 

so now i have a sense of relief when the synth's introduced because i found the "1" again, bar 21 functions as an unexpected resolution, as an unexpected drop of the weirdest kind.

for some reason, probably because the ternary "interlude" was followed by an odd number of bars (5), this resolution has a ternary feel to me, in the sense that it almost feels like the 1st bar of a 3-bar pattern that just got repeated.

the whole point of the intro was to get to that moment, that feels very intense and dramatic because our attention is sharper than ever now that we finally come out of the mist, back on our feet, on the "1". 

 

we now see that the synth riff actually starts on the strong bar, but has an unexpected position in the tune, because we were in a state of uncertainty from bars 16 to 21. it's like we were lost for a moment and finally reached our destination without really getting how we got there. 

 

that was long as fuck and laborious. sorry about that.

more next time. feel free to take part.

 

 

this is the precise reason why I've always swerved meeting anyone at a 'watmm meet up' at any gig I've attended!

 

; )

Edited March 5, 2019 by beerwolf

  On 3/5/2019 at 5:33 PM, beerwolf said:

this is the precise reason why I've always swerved meeting anyone at a 'watmm meet up' at any gig I've attended!

 

; )

 

 

genuine lol

 

bonus: before further analysis, i made a quick edit of the intro. removed bar 16 out of curiosity cause why not, slowed the audio down for extra chill feels 

 

isopropanol edit.mp3Fetching info...

for all this analysis I'm damn sure that Richie just jammed that shit out to tape and it just felt right at the time.

s all about that kick

  On 3/5/2019 at 11:38 PM, donquixote said:

for all this analysis I'm damn sure that Richie just jammed that shit out to tape and it just felt right at the time.

 

yeah it's quite safe to say he didn't have a clue about the inner workings and implications of that stuff, but his very musical ear and taste for the unusual made up for his ignorance of theory. 

  On 3/5/2019 at 11:38 PM, donquixote said:

for all this analysis I'm damn sure that Richie just jammed that shit out to tape and it just felt right at the time.

That's what I was thinking also. Maybe multiple takes and the best one was selected but it's probably recorded "live" with hardware synths and a mixer.

 

Anyone know when he switched to software based composing and editing? I would guess around 1995 when the Hangable Auto Bulb and ICBYD came out but my Aphex trivia knowledge is not that good.

Hangable Auto Bulb > RDJ Album seems correct. 

ICBYD has dates on back per track but i'm guessing most/all are still hardware.

did a post get deleted front the start of the thread? why is don quixote taking brian tregaskins musical analysis so personally? and where does he mention that he doesn't like his tunes? i'm confused. i think by "you've" brian meant himself, in the third person, buddy... (@don quixote)

"- why that is that most if not all of the tunes you've made or will make suck balls, and how to remedy that."

 

Im not taking it personally. I just want the answer. It would be great to know and Brian is holding out on me like a big old tease.

Edited March 8, 2019 by donquixote

"why that is that most if not all of the tunes you've made or will make suck balls" 

Spend too much micro-analysing Aphex Twin songs.

 

"and how to remedy that."

Spend less time micro-analysing Aphex Twin songs and spend more time making your own songs and crafting the skill.

 

Look at the # of RDJ tracks released via album + ep + soundcloud, from early 90s. 

The dude has spent a good portion of time just making songs and crafting his skill, as opposed to writing 3+ X multiple paragraph long posts on a music forum micro-analysing a song released ~40 years ago. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by bitchroast

  On 3/8/2019 at 7:49 AM, bitchroast said:

"why that is that most if not all of the tunes you've made or will make suck balls"

Spend too much micro-analysing Aphex Twin songs.

 

"and how to remedy that."

Spend less time micro-analysing Aphex Twin songs and spend more time making your own songs and crafting the skill.

 

Look at the # of RDJ tracks released via album + ep + soundcloud, from early 90s.

The dude has spent a good portion of time just making songs and crafting his skill, as opposed to writing 3+ X multiple paragraph long posts on a music forum micro-analysing a song released ~40 years ago.

Yes this is the best answer I've seen in this thread by far. Edited March 8, 2019 by donquixote

the point of this thread was to try to gain a better understanding of the music language, of the concepts and musical devices that trigger aesthetic emotion, by using a "semiotic" approach if you like.

i'm obviously handicapped by my limited knowledge of music theory so i resort to "micro-analysis" for lack of a better way to make my point. my analysis is confused because my understanding is as well so sorry about that.

 

i'm not personally interested in making tunes at the moment, i'm only interested in understanding the inner workings of music in general.

last year i got back to playing piano in the sole purpose of learning harmony, been self-teaching music theory by watching youtube videos ever since. i haven't looked deeper into rhythm so far. not very happy with how slow i learn but that's how it is. 

 

all i can say is the more i understand how music works, the more i appreciate it. music theory is only a tool in my quest for musical pleasure, a time-saving, enabling tool that can only boost creativity.

as of today, my appreciation of rdj's music is now limited because his music language is. i think his music would have greatly benefited from learning more music theory.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Brian Tregaskin

why?

  On 3/8/2019 at 3:25 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i think his music would have greatly benefited from learning more music theory.

You sure about that? I think that the main reason of his popularity is his intuitive approach. Sure music theory is nice but I don't think that many people give a shit about it.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Freak of the week

that's just you limiting yourself

JFC. KFC. UFC and all that shit.

I'm gonna play this out actually. @brian. So who's not limited musically in your opinion? Electronic, classical, whatever? Whos the goat in your world?

 

For the sake of the thread I'm gonna put my opinion forward: Rich has made up for any perceived lack of classical "musicality" in so many ways. Creativity, sound design, production. All of which could have suffered if he'd worried about some other stuff. I don't reckon you can knock Rich, Autechre, BOC, Tom, Derick may, fingers or any of these guys. They structured our imaginations and continue to do so. Props where props is due imo.

Edited March 8, 2019 by donquixote