At 04:27 PM 1/20/2003 -0800, you wrote:
quoted 10 lines Well in that same interview they spoke about thier>Well in that same interview they spoke about thier
>recording techniques, (for Confield) and a lot of the
>random generation process, and how they keep thier
>machines running these algorithms and spitting out
>tracks, and then they go through the output and maybe
>use 1% of what comes out and very little final editing
>goes into it. Which as an idea is really great and
>fascinating, and it definnitley takes some smarts to
>do that, but I fail to hear the beauty in it that
>other people do.
See, how is that much different from someone tweaking synth sounds until
they get a sound they want to use? It's not a perfect analogy, sure, but
it is somewhat applicable. If an artist "randomly" tweaks some knobs
around on a synth to get some sounds, they probably also only use 1% of the
sounds they created to make a track in a song, and then do the same with
another bit.
Of course, as I'm sure you've probably figured out, over time, that artist
gets an understanding of whatever he's working with, and can manipulate the
seemingly random sounds to do what he wants. He's not just "wanking," he
knows what part of the sound his particular modifications are changing and
can then work with those.
Now, they may very well be simply writing some long math equations with no
idea what's going on, and simply using the ones that sound like
something. But as someone who's played around with algorithmic and
generative music on a small level, being able to even make something that
sounds like a track is far from easy. You wouldn't get a sound like
"parheric triangle," that's for sure :) Plus, despite the weirdness in
their songs, they certainly still follow some normal track behaviors, like
buildups, breakdowns, and the like. It may be obvious, but I think their
later stuff is significantly more dynamic than their early stuff, which
usually had rather formulaic buildups/breakdowns/progressions, and the
repetitive nature sometimes hindered the music, rather than giving it a
chance to change over time.
You may be familiar with chaos theory, but if you're not, it's about seeing
the patterns in chaos, or randomness. It's seeing whether what's random
really is random, and if there is a pattern, then seeing how you can
manipulate the pattern and what that changes. To a slight degree, that's
what I hear when I consider Autechre to be "random," but really, it's a bit
too "unrandom" to be random. There may not be a cut and dried melody, but
there's nearly always a rhythm, and that rhythm usually consists of a few
set sounds that work off of one another in rather predictable, workable
ways. They may be randomly generated, but compared to random, academic
music, there's a world of difference. That might be the editing process,
but it sounds much more like something they're setting up to do what's
going on.
There are plenty of algorithms that will take a set pattern and add
randomisations to it, as well, which I wouldn't put past autechre as
describing as a "random pattern." Those pushes and pulls of rhythm that
happen all over their more recent output *sounds* more like them fiddling
with the pattern rather than letting the maths do it, as generative
patterns like fractals certainly don't do that :)
quoted 17 lines Maybe I haven't had the patience to> Maybe I haven't had the patience to
>really listen to it enough to enjoy it. Maybe it's
>like one of those posters those computer generated 3d
>posters that you need to cross your eyes a certain way
>to see the hidden image, and maybe I'm not crossing my
>ears in the right way. Props to you for bieng able to
>hear something else than I am hearing, I don't find
>fault in people for liking or hearing something in
>music that I care for, including the hordes of
>Chemical Brothers and Underworld fans, or people who
>like Van Halen, Rod Stewart or any of the music out
>there that I can't stand. Having said that, what level
>of concern for the listener is neccessary when you are
>making and releasing music, for what reason do you
>make music other than for someone other than yourself
>to listen to it? And if for your own pleasure, what
>difference between that and wankery?
I think that is the difference, actually -- your own *pleasure*. It's
making something you like. I mean, if you like wanking, that's cool, but I
think there is a difference between doing something that you like, and
doing something just because you can do it. It's a subtle difference,
sure, but still a difference. And as long as their music sounds like
they're pushing and pulling their own understanding of whatever software
they're using to the satisfaction of their own [human] ears, I think it
will remain interesting.
Especially compared to what I've heard in the "doing it for the sake of
doing it" camp in academia... *shudder*
derek
-------
eggytoast.com
-------
coming soon: eggtastic.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org