IDM Mailing Archive

Autechre - (what is WARPLP66P called?) I have no track names for this (are there any?). The trademark icy soundscape and crunchy beats can still be found, but there is also something more; a sense of warmth. This is still very much an Autechre album with it's deceptive tricks with the rhythm, shifting subtlety and crispy static. It sounds (as I realise others have remarked) more like the tracks off Cichli Suite than Chiastic Slide. One of my favourite tracks (at the moment) is track 3 which has a vaguely up-tempo hip-hopish beat. Much of the feeling and sound remind me of Draun Quarter from the Envane release but with less meloncholy. About 3/4 in, the rhythm gradually slows to half-tempo and then the gaps are filled with a stuttering chirping to revive the original tempo. A very impressive effect reduced to reletive crap by my inadequate descriptive ability. The closer, track 11 is genius. Beautiful and majestic. The intricacy is exemplified with clattering synth (sounding like the notes are bouncing with declining momentum as used by Aphex on Bucephalus Bouncing Ball - must be some new clever software trick or something) building a framework of sound amidst which a new line emerges to bring into focus a rhythm previously unthought of. The piece as a whole is more accessible than Chiastic Slide and will probably receive a greater reception, all-round. The rhythms, though still unusual at times are a little more 'groovy' (there's a great track in 7/8 time signiature) and the melody will certainly appeal - track 10 is almost pop by Autechre standards! BTW - that means it doesn't sound like pop at all). The continual changing and unfolding of each track is mimicked on a macro scale by the progression of sound on each album: always many of the elements of the previous but mutated and reformed to serve a different purpose and shed a different light. Not sure what this pseudo clever arse means but it reads well enough. In summary, this is very good indeed. Could be their best yet but you understand how difficult a decision that is particularly considering that I only received this 4 days ago. Nick

quoted 5 lines The piece as a whole is more accessible than Chiastic Slide and will

> > The piece as a whole is more accessible than Chiastic Slide and will > > probably receive a greater reception, all-round. The rhythms, though > > I'm not sure whether I'd say it's more accessible than C. S. but I > did like it from the first listen.

Can you say that about C.S? I'm not sure I can. Of course, I love it now and knew at the time that I would later, based on past experience with their work.

quoted 4 lines like it from the first listen. As for the reception it'll get, who

> like it from the first listen. As for the reception it'll get, who > can tell, this is last year's sound isn't it (<-not sincere). > Track 8 is the best, of course. In time, you'll agree. Autechre > jazz.

Yeah, 8 is a good'n but I thought there had always been a jazz element to their music (<-only half sincere).

quoted 2 lines A true appreciation of Autechre can only come from having acquired

> A true appreciation of Autechre can only come from having acquired > their releases in order, in my opinion. Maybe.

I can agree with this, as someone who has done just that, but where is the control group? I don't know how you would measure appreciation. Nick

On Tue, 19 May 1998, -wheeler- wrote:

quoted 7 lines I'm not sure whether I'd say it's more accessible than C. S. but I

> > I'm not sure whether I'd say it's more accessible than C. S. but I > > did like it from the first listen. > > Can you say that about C.S? I'm not sure I can. Of course, I love it > now and knew at the time that I would later, based on past > experience with their work. >

It's not too interesting of me to say it but I'm in absolute agreement with you here. I've learned never to judge an Ae release from the first hearing. And yes, I can't say I had the same initial reaction with C. S. So perhaps it's more accessible but not simpler.

quoted 3 lines Yeah, 8 is a good'n but I thought there had always been a jazz

> Yeah, 8 is a good'n but I thought there had always been a jazz > element to their music (<-only half sincere). >

Hmmm. I was trying to think of a clever phrase and that was all I managed. What I should have said was that a lot of the melody on that track sounds like live playing, although it probably isn't (might be though) and that is in contrast with a lot of their material which sounds like machines talking to each other.

quoted 7 lines A true appreciation of Autechre can only come from having acquired

> > A true appreciation of Autechre can only come from having acquired > > their releases in order, in my opinion. Maybe. > > I can agree with this, as someone who has done just that, but > where is the control group? I don't know how you would measure > appreciation. >

Blast - you've spotted the scientific flaw in my reasoning. Again the result of shoddy expression. What I really meant was getting them when they came out. I feel as though I've grown up with them in some musical sense. Pretty spurious, actually. I can remember each purchase, including taking back my grey vinyl Incunabula 3 times... adam

On Tue, 19 May 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote:

quoted 11 lines On 05/19/98 18:26:22 you wrote:

> On 05/19/98 18:26:22 you wrote: > > >Hmmm. I was trying to think of a clever phrase and that was all I > >managed. What I should have said was that a lot of the melody on that > >track sounds like live playing > > why would you think it wasn't live playing? how do you think autechre > records are created? psychic powers on sean and rob's part? or did you > mean it sounds like live instruments (guitars? horns?) haven't heard the > track yet so i can't comment. >

Sigh. What I meant was it sounded as though they had left the parts I was referring to unquantised, having simply played on top of the existing track. Not all that unusual an event, granted, but it *sounds* different to the more usual Ae style. As it happens I do know how "techno tracks are made". adam

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Adam Huffman wrote:

quoted 19 lines On Tue, 19 May 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Tue, 19 May 1998 thatcat@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > On 05/19/98 18:26:22 you wrote: > > > > >Hmmm. I was trying to think of a clever phrase and that was all I > > >managed. What I should have said was that a lot of the melody on that > > >track sounds like live playing > > > > why would you think it wasn't live playing? how do you think autechre > > records are created? psychic powers on sean and rob's part? or did you > > mean it sounds like live instruments (guitars? horns?) haven't heard the > > track yet so i can't comment. > > > > Sigh. What I meant was it sounded as though they had left the parts I was > referring to unquantised, having simply played on top of the existing > track. Not all that unusual an event, granted, but it *sounds* different > to the more usual Ae style. As it happens I do know how "techno tracks > are made".

Some of the tracks on Chiastic Slide sound like they were using different swing quantizations that would end up forcing their notes into awkward positions, that is, places where a non-experimentally-minded programmers would say "that doesn't sound right" and correct them. Well, Autechre must just leave them, or push them around a bit. Also, I wonder if they have any access to quantization templates (don't they use Ensoniq samplers, what can these boxes extra software do?) which they screw with a lot. On the other hand, some of their earlier stuff, like one title on the Anti-EP is fairly simple syncopation...in fact I was able to get an almost identical sound on my Pro One once last year and realized that their were few other elements at all in the rest of the track. I think that they just keep a fairly open mind when programming their sequencer and recording CC changes or patch modulations into their tracks. If you look over the whole history of Autechre records, they've been messing with non-quantized (or more oddly-quantized) sequencing gradually more and more. David solenoid@europa.com <------+

On 05/19/98 20:16:56 you wrote:

quoted 10 lines why would you think it wasn't live playing? how do you think autechre records

> >>why would you think it wasn't live playing? how do you think autechre records >are >>created? >Why do you always jump down people's throats about their incorrect assumptions >about the way techno is made? Most techno on this list sounds programmed, >because the percussion is so exact and every sound is exactly "in place"... >It's the electronic equivalent of a band doing 100s of takes in the studio so >they can get exactly the sound they want. If they can use Cubase and protools >to get the sound the first time, why bother to rehearse and play a track live?

it is far easier to record a keyboard part into a sequencer than to step-enter or otherwise program the notes. now, i'm not saying that ae are recording everything live at once, obviously they are recording many tracks of things into the sequencer and editing. but unless ae are doing something far different (and far more tedious) than other musicians, it all starts with playing live keyboard parts into the sequencer. as for techno artists getting crisp and rhythmically precise beats, one can quantize a played part into an exact pattern. another element of liveness in ae's recent works that is often overlooked is the fact that not all the percussion is looping throughout the tracks...often things playing a fairly steady rhythm will slip up or mutate into something else. take for example the remix they did for spacetime continuum, the kick and snare parts do not always fall in the same place; it sounds a bit live and sloppy.

quoted 4 lines But regardless, they're's no reason for you to be all bitchy about showing peopl

>But regardless, they're's no reason for you to be all bitchy about showing people >up with how much you know about Autechre's studio. Just say it in a friendly >way... If I've misinterpreted what seems to be a desire on your part to be a >prick, please restate yourself on the list.

i just asked two simple questions...i didn't mean to bitch at people. but it does slightly offend me when people assume that electronic music is programmed in the same fashion that someone writes computer code...it's not too much different a process than a guitar band going into a modern digital studio and recording multiple tracks of everything and then editing out all the mistakes... "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."

On 05/20/98 09:33:13 you wrote:

quoted 3 lines Sigh. What I meant was it sounded as though they had left the parts I was

>Sigh. What I meant was it sounded as though they had left the parts I was >referring to unquantised, having simply played on top of the existing >track.

sorry...i thought you meant they were suddenly playing live after years of only programming things. my mistake.

quoted 2 lines Not all that unusual an event, granted, but it *sounds* different

>Not all that unusual an event, granted, but it *sounds* different >to the more usual Ae style.

i think they are definitely moving in a less-quantized, more freeform direction. "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."