[idm] The Lentic Catachresis debate (was Re: [idm]kicks ass)
Msg-Id:
<3B4FDA2A.70304@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Mbox:
idm.0107.gz
Peter Schrock wrote:
quoted 10 lines on 7/13/01 8:05 PM, Brian M. Cass at kingmob@nmt.edu wrote:> on 7/13/01 8:05 PM, Brian M. Cass at kingmob@nmt.edu wrote:
>
>> Lentic Cathresis kicks ass
>
> I think it's funny that since I have gotten this album, and I have started
> to use max/msp, I have really enjoyed listening to Confield and started to
> listen to LP5 again. I really don't get why so many can say they dig on
> LP5 but can't listen to Confield. Confield is just taking what they were
> doing on LP5 even deeper. I love this album more than ever.
> NP:pachinko
I don't know... Lentic Catachresis I find to be excessively boring after
the 3 minute mark. Granted the changeup is unexpected and amazing at
first listen, but it continues on for a painful 6 and half minutes with
little to no change whatsoever rhythmically, texturally or melodically
which is a contrast to the rest of the ablum. Granted there's this
creepy chord progression buried deep in the mix that changes back and
forth, but no more than that. The worst thing is it would be more
tolerable in its minimal setting if the beat/rhythm was at least
comprehendable, but it isn't. It's just uninteresting and doesn't evolve..
On a completely rhetorical note, though, the way I see that song shaped
out is that Rob and Sean set it up to self generate and it accidentally
exploded on itself and changed into a completely different song
unintentionally. In terms of digital generative song writing, that's
creepy and throws new light on the song, making it conceptually (though
not musically) more interesting.
-mark