esa ruoho wrote:
quoted 1 line > http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A3895806
[snip]
quoted 9 lines Toni Ahvenainen asks: How do Autechre know when their idea is “finished
>
> Toni Ahvenainen asks: How do Autechre know when their idea is “finished
> music” ready to be published, and when not?
> RB: We try and see a track through to its end. Some tracks just end up
> getting shelved if we can’t agree, and some tracks will stand the test
> of time. We’ll pull them off the shelf and say, “Yeah that’s really
> good.” But it’s unlikely that tracks like that will end up on the album.
> Albums tend to be tracks worked on from one day to the very end, even if
> it’s over a period of a year or two.
You know, this really summarizes the changeup in their career for me.
I feel like, from Incunabula up to, somewhere between LP5 and Confield,
(perhaps including LP5 and perhaps not) - it seems that their tracks are
really finished compositions that "stand the test of time". I pull
those albums and EPs out and listen and think "Yeah that's really good."
Somewhere after that, however, while I can still appreciate the music,
it sounds more like experiments they were still working on up until the
day the album was released. It's awesome, interesting stuff - even
visceral and emotional - but on a very different level. It grows on me,
but in a very different way, and when I want to listen to it again it's
much less often than their older work and for different reasons.
So it definitely feels to me like their earlier stuff are "classic
compositions" and their later stuff is "works in progress from the
experimental lab of Autechre." And it struck me that they sort of
recognize that themselves, that there are some tracks that they "finish"
and others they don't, and that the stuff they kept working on is what
goes on the albums. I wonder if that's changed in the past 5-6 years or
if it's always been that way. In other words, I wonder if it's them or
me - if they've changed how they create and release music, or if it's
just a threshold in my own psychology - maybe I am just incapable of
perceiving music beyond a certain level as being a finished whole, a
complete composition. Maybe I'm just tied down by what I'm used to from
musical tradition and convention.
Interesting to ponder, but pointless unless I can ask them if they used
to once upon a time release their "finished" tracks or if even on Amber
they were slapping together the album from music they were working on up
until the deadline. Until the day I can ask them that, I'm stuck with
approaching their later music much differently than I approach their
earlier music. Bascially, on a level where I think it's good, but I
don't like it nearly as much. And I'll still buy their albums.
> Chris Hopcroft asks: PC or Mac?
> RB: Both. Mostly Mac, just for convenience and quality. The build is
> better. But it’s not as customisable. With a PC, if you're a real geek
> you can get ahead of everyone with loads of components. Apple is cased
> in concrete, but it is concrete nonetheless and you can rely on that
> sometimes.
And that's just funny. True, too. One of the most concise analyses
I've seen of the differences between PC and Mac. PCs offer a lot of
freedom, but also a lot of risk, sometimes too much of both. Macs offer
a known, familiar reliability, but that can also be stifling.
It mirrors my own experience with switching. I've lost all the
headaches I had from my PC days of worrying about compatibility and
security, but I've gained headaches from not being able to run certain
software and games.
*sigh*
-Adam Piontek, bringing you even more inane ramblings you didn't want.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org