Please to be explain: Why the fact that I am not thoroughly knocked out by this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyJfHU4GoOQ makes me the equivalent of a musical troglodyte.
Okay, look: I'm not musically trained but I'm fucking smart. I was born with a natural ear and (from what I've been told) perfect pitch (I used to hum the dishwasher, cars and refrigerator as a child). I just never had anyone telling me "You're talented! Go ahead and try to do something musical because you have a chance at making that work!" (are you hearing the irony and understatement in that? Yeah? Yeah, yeah?)
To me, it sounds like a basic syncopated rhythm pattern (oh jesus. Okay, okay, you win the breakbeat argument) with some multi-tap-delay-techniques, autotune and my 7-year-old at the controls of a synth with sound samples from both Trons and one of the last Terminator movies fed in. I mean, I feel like I could make this stuff.
To my high-brow, uber-smart musician fuckers, it sounds like Deus ex machina, so to speak. Just fucking genius.
Is the Emperor nekkid? Or am I a fucking moron?
I don't get it either. Is there something I'm missing?
RIGHT?!?
Fuck.
Quote from: Nigel on August 06, 2011, 06:41:57 AM
I don't get it either. Is there something I'm missing?
I don't get it either. :argh!:
I have musical gifts on par with an average toadstool, and I must say that the above link sounds like donkey turds being fired out of a potato cannon into my ears.
Navkat, you are totally correct here. LMNO probably only enjoys Autechre for the very reason that it makes other people confused and a little upset when they don't "get it". That should probably not be interpreted to mean that there are actually people who DO "get it".
tl:dr version: Autechre is just noisy crap.
Quote from: Cainad on August 06, 2011, 06:58:00 AM
I have musical gifts on par with an average toadstool, and I must say that the above link sounds like donkey turds being fired out of a potato cannon into my ears.
So....is that vid at the point like, in the
beginning when the cannon just starts firing up? Or like, after it's been going awhile and the donkey turds have started to build up in your ears a bit?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 07:02:11 AM
Navkat, you are totally correct here. LMNO probably only enjoys Autechre for the very reason that it makes other people confused and a little upset when they don't "get it". That should probably not be interpreted to mean that there are actually people who DO "get it".
tl:dr version: Autechre is just noisy crap.
I didn't even realize there was an existing thing about this. I asked LMNO because he's the only highbrow music snob I've ever argued with on this board.
Are your friends arguing from the side of the technical difficulty of creating it?
Some musician friends fap to things like this because of the difficulty thru the method for creating it...
But yes, aesthetically speaking, not amused.
Muscian Hat: Kinda neat, but at points it borders on annoying as piss. And by " at points" and "borders on" I mean "after about 30 seconds I want to punch the monitor until it stops".
Quote from: Doktor Phox on August 06, 2011, 09:27:41 AM
Muscian Hat: Kinda neat, but at points it borders on annoying as piss. And by " at points" and "borders on" I mean "after about 30 seconds I want to punch the monitor until it stops".
Right. I don't understand how people can voluntarily
do drugs and listen to this. #1 way to kill a good roll IMO.
I sometimes like Autechre. There's various reasons, some of them more personal than others:
- first, some of their albums is just plain beautiful electronic music. I'm thinking of Incunabula, Amber and Tri Repeatae and possibly LP5 though that one borders on the unintelligible, I do really like it.
- after Aphex Twin, Autechre were the second artists that brought me into contact with the truly weird electronic music. Third was Squarepusher, so those three will always seem kind of special to me.
- some (possibly all) of their weirder tracks have this "trick" or "gimmick" to it, a kind of concept or idea behind it, that if you don't know what it is, it'll sound like unintelligible clicks and noise, and as soon as you realize what it is, you can notice a structure, things fall into place and the track becomes real interesting (though not necessarily beautiful) to listen to. this "key" to a track doesn't always have to do with musical theory, either. For instance Fold4,Wrap5 doing something really odd like Escher's staircases for tempo, seemingly going slower and slower but in actuality, not. Cichli has some really odd on/off logic to its melody, like a ballpoint clicking, hard to explain.
But then, I like contemporary art as well. Something can appear completely incomprehensible, until you find out what the artist was trying to do, or how they did it. If done right, it can even make completely white paintings interesting. Which is what I hated about MoMa in NYC, they had loads of contemporary art on display, but hardly any explanations. And then a hanging bridge fashioned from kitchensink sponges is just a stupid crafts project. Which was very disappointing cause I didn't travel to NYC and pay $20 entry to see incomprehensible crap and pretend I can guess the artist's intentions behind it--which is clearly impossible unless it's a famous artist because you already know what Pollock, Warhol and Duchamp were trying to do. And that is when it becomes pretentious, IMO.
To contrast, we went to a museum in Beacon, called "Dia", which was also filled with contemporary art. Now, some of it, like Autechre, was just damn impressive, pretty or interesting all by itself. But everything had a nice text next to it, explaining what it was about. So the huge hallway with metal plates that you didn't pay attention to at first [because some other art piece was immediately and more obviously grabbing your attention], suddenly becomes interesting to look at as you find out the artist has done something clever with the number of silver and gold dots in arithmetic progressions. Or the guy that's painted dates nearly every day, why and how he did that. Some of his date paintings were also in MoMa, which just looked like someone painting "3 DEC 2007" on a piece of canvas because those fucks didn't bother to explain the what how and why behind those paintings. Like everybody's supposed to know him.
So yeah, I guess that point is that some of AE's tracks have a special meaning or "idea" behind them, and if you don't know that idea, it's perfectly reasonable and normal that you can't appreciate the track as anything but a load of noise and clicks. I can also understand that's frustrating, it frustrates me as well sometimes, just like MoMa's lack of explanations frustrated me. The difference, though, with MoMa you just have until closing time to see it all and figure it out. And it pisses me off when I pay the entry fee and spend one of my limited days in NYC in their museum they do such a bad job of communicating their art to me. With AE you buy or download the album, you can listen to it as many times as you like, read about it, discuss it with people, etc.
It's also one of the reasons why I wouldn't go out of my way to be able to see AE perform live. If they're in the neighbourhood, sure, just for the hell of it. But I wouldn't travel or pay exorbitant fee to be exposed to 90 minutes of machine-improvised noise clicks and bleeps that are impossible to "get" on the first listening anyway. That's definitely different than Aphex Twin or Squarepusher, btw.
- Finally, there's another part. A lot of their music is "generative", and so are the graphics in the videoclip you linked. Generative Art is a kind of art that's based on computer programs and algorithms generating patterns. A lot of what comes out is noisy crap, but part of the coolness is the process behind the generating of the data. Hence "generative". Like it matters if your noise source is data grabbed from video feed of a lavalamp, or audio-feedback via two mobile phones or a robot arm with a paintbrush controlled by electrodes in a piece of rat's brain tissue on the other side of the fucking continent (that was fucking awesome even though the paintings were hideous).
I like generative art. A lot of Autechre's more complex rhythms are produced by very tiny logic programs following simple rules like "go bleep-tick if the clonky noise went blang five times". What I love about that is that you can make up very simple rules, and you set them off, and something very complex and unexpected comes out. That unexpected part is the whole reason why I'm in love with computer programming, most kids start learning to code because they want to make computer games. I wanted to create life on the computer.
(See for my examples my multiscale turing patterns thread and the "design doodles" I bumped in Bring & Brag)
One thing that I can imagine to be a result of this for Autechre is this. They're in their studio, playing with their awesome music tools and computers. Some of the bits are also built in electronics, not just computer programs btw. And they're just playing and making up stuff and trying out things and weeding through all the stuff that comes out for the most interesting and cool bits. Very law-of-fives like. I can totally imagine that after doing that for ages, you're going to hear patterns and structures and melody in other-worldly sounding insane glitch crap that no normal human being could ever comprehend unless they spent years doing the same. But you hear it and you build a track around it in the non-Euclidian rules and warped sense of musical logic that you are certain is there, and through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods — the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyautechrotep.
Oh and one thing that I immediately loved about the video you linked, is how extremely well-synchronized the 3D graphics are to the music. That's another advantage of generative art, it's all just data, and you can link the Machine that goes P:ING!BZT straight to the part of the polygon model that goes flash-twhirl. The software they often use for this is called MAX/JSP btw, a very popular tool in generative art.
Well I hope that explains a little. And if you still think it's pretentious: SORRY FOR LIKING SOMETHING YOU DONT LIKE OKAY
Cause I have to say, you do seem upset about the fact that some people like it and you apparently do not. I can't stand lots of music but you don't see me making a thread taking a dump on country music and how people that like it are so pretentious because others that don't like it obviously haven't lived through enough hardships to truly "get it"...
I have to respectfully disagree. If an "artist" creates "art" that, upon seeing or hearing, you see no intrinsic artistic value in and can only find meaning in it AFTER the artist explains it to you, it may still be art but it's also utter crap. It seems like basically the artistic equivalent of forcing other people to read your LiveJournal. Good art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
it sounds like someone took an electronic song i might like and then fast forwarded it until it made fast screechy noises at me
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 12:50:36 PMI have to respectfully disagree. If an "artist" creates "art" that, upon seeing or hearing, you see no intrinsic artistic value in and can only find meaning in it AFTER the artist explains it to you, it may still be art but it's also utter crap. It seems like basically the artistic equivalent of forcing other people to read your LiveJournal. Good art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
Yeah, I heard this before, and it doesn't really work.
Example: Pollock. Is considered art.
According to you, its artistic value only exists because apparently there's people that
immediately see intrinsic artistic value in what can not be explained [following your attitude of "non crap" art] as anything but random splotches of paint.
Except that:
- people tend to enjoy Pollock's art more as they learn more about Pollock and his methods
- people who generally do not enjoy random splotches of paint suddenly find themselves intrigued by Pollock's paintings as they learn more about it
- other paintings that actually
are random splotches of paint are not held in as high regard as Pollock's, while without the artist's story behind it, they would be functionally equivalent.
Additionally, this attitude is one of the things that Modern Art rebelled against. Or, I'm not good with art history maybe it was dada or post modern or something else, and there was a political aspect to it as well.
But part of the idea is that the
process as well as the artist's
intent can lend as much artistic value to the art piece as the end product itself.
And it goes much deeper than that. How about art from other cultures? There's things I could not appreciate unless I'd learn about and immerse myself in that culture first. Sure, some things may be pretty all by themselves, but you're not seriously suggesting aesthetics is the
only aspect of art that makes it non-crap, right? So I'd learn about that culture and suddenly I could appreciate the delicate way in which a piece of carved wood is painted with reindeer droppings or whatever, which would have been "just crap" without that background knowledge. Same as some tracks by Autechre are just pretty by themselves, and others I could only appreciate
after I knew more about how they work.
Or how about, in MoMa I saw framed cartoons with a political bend from Africa, they weren't particularly good or well-drawn. They were decent, good enough, I guess. But knowing a littlebit about Africa's political background (as well as that in this case, MoMa
had seen fit to include some plaques explaining--cause you know, american visitors can't be expected to know about these things), the pictures and the content became all that more poignant.
So again,
QuoteGood art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
I do agree there is such a thing, yes (maybe not strictly objectively, but at least shared by the majority of people).
However, if that's the only way something can be Good Art, you're excluding a whole bunch of stuff.
The extra background information can even make Good Art even better.
Oh and then of course there's Kitsch. Which is not Good Art, but it can look really pretty! Or a picture of a beautiful pink and orange sunset. Or a Bob Ross painting. So it goes both ways. I can see something that is extremely pretty (so it does speak to me all on its own) but as I look at it longer I see that that is pretty much all it has to say, because the "artist" never saw fit to put any other layers or meaning into his work.
I can also see how, if you accept art in that way, how it really becomes quite easy to pass of something that actually
is utter crap as High Art, as long as you have a good story to go with it. That's a bit of a shitty problem, of course.
But on the other hand, this is nothing new. And on the
other other hand this is exactly the sort of paradoxes and conundrums that have been explored by modern and post-modern art movements. Which IMO is highly interesting.
What things have artistic value because of their backstory?
You can't deny that there isn't any art, real art, that is only significant because of its backstory, unless you want to
only count art that has stood the test of time, the Bach and the van Gogh stuff.
So the next question becomes, how much artistic value can we pump into some art piece by backstory alone? (again, this is also nothing new)
And then the question becomes, can we pull it off by backstory alone? Which is when you get stuff like white paintings :)
Like I said, all I can do is agree to disagree. I don't want to have to work to enjoy a piece of art. I certainly don't expect (or want) everyone to agree with me, just giving my take on it. I'll take a Bob Ross painting of happy little trees on my living room wall over some Jackson Pollock splatter art any day. It's the same reason I think that Motorhead kicks 1000x more ass than Dream Theater.
I'm totally OK with the fact that this probably makes me a philistine.
Art is different things for different people, and that's OK.
I like some art that is a puzzle that needs to be unlocked, and some art that is exactly what it seems to be.
I should mention that Motorhead kicks SO MUCH ASS that what I actually have on my wall is Lemmy's crazy leer staring down at anyone who happens to be sitting on my couch.
Motorhead kicks so much ass that they make for better visual art than actual visual art.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 05:17:36 PM
I should mention that Motorhead kicks SO MUCH ASS that what I actually have on my wall is Lemmy's crazy leer staring down at anyone who happens to be sitting on my couch.
Motorhead kicks so much ass that they make for better visual art than actual visual art.
"Who would win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?
"Lemmy, no...God?"
"Wrong, dickhead, trick question. Lemmy IS God."
I'm somewhere in between you two, trip and ech. My primary criteria for art is, does it appeal to me (aesthetically / for what it creates within me). That's simply instinctual for me, and an experience somewhat separate from the study of art history - that is, knowing "wow, that's beautiful" and knowing "wow, I really like the message the artist was trying to put into this piece" are two separate ways to appreciate art. And I don't really see anything as pretentious - poop smeared on a canvas can be just as obvious to one person as a super realistic landscape is to another - can hit them just as hard.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 02:41:32 PM
Like I said, all I can do is agree to disagree. I don't want to have to work to enjoy a piece of art. I certainly don't expect (or want) everyone to agree with me, just giving my take on it. I'll take a Bob Ross painting of happy little trees on my living room wall over some Jackson Pollock splatter art any day. It's the same reason I think that Motorhead kicks 1000x more ass than Dream Theater.
I'm totally OK with the fact that this probably makes me a philistine.
I agree on both accounts, but I can understand, to an extent, the appeal of Jackson Pollock and Dream Theater, and so would not object to the idea that some people consider them to be good art.
This is perhaps because I am not so sure that there is objectively good art. But even so, I can respect the notion that I should not have to work to enjoy art, and completely agree with that as well. That is one reason I am not a fan of most gimmicky art.
I should probably clarify that though I do believe there is objectively good art, I don't think that MY tastes and preferences are what dictates what is or isn't good.
I think Pollack and Autechre are crap and I like abstract, pretentious art.
Pollack didn't make sense to me until I saw it in person. Photos of the work didn't do it justice, but when you're standing in front of this enormous canvas you get a sense of the kinetic movement, the energy needed to accomplish it. I liked it a lot better after that. In fact, the best experiences I've had with any art, be it music or canvas, is when I'm experiencing it first hand.
I like how this thread has gone from "what's the deal with Autechre?" to a discussion about the nature of artistic value itself and LMNO hasn't even had a chance to answer the OP yet. :lulz:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 06, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Pollack didn't make sense to me until I saw it in person. Photos of the work didn't do it justice, but when you're standing in front of this enormous canvas you get a sense of the kinetic movement, the energy needed to accomplish it. I liked it a lot better after that. In fact, the best experiences I've had with any art, be it music or canvas, is when I'm experiencing it first hand.
Yes, yes, yes.
Greyed Rainbow. Chicago 1998. Changed my life.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 07:27:18 PM
I like how this thread has gone from "what's the deal with Autechre?" to a discussion about the nature of artistic value itself and LMNO hasn't even had a chance to answer the OP yet. :lulz:
I have grown to fucking
love you people.
Okay, so from this conversation, I've been able to deduce that Autechre is art to some people and I'm kool with that. I understand this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGUnrIiOoI a little better than Ganz Graf (which is supposedly such a fucking revolutionary track) and I comprehend the draw to Boards of Canada with no problem even though Downtempo and Chill aren't my bag.
I suspect there's a valid draw to the sounds of pieces like Ganz Graf...and I also suspect that I'm right about there being a very big "The Emperor isn't wearing anything" aspect to this as well: no one wants to be the first of the Hipster Wavers to declare "This is crap!" throw that PBR in the trash and walk down the street to the Blues club for a shitty Miller Lite and better music.
I have had a friend who's damned-near a musical prodigy. He hears music and breaks everything down in his head into a mathematical formula. Remember that scene in The Matrix where Cypher was like "All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead?" Yeah, that's him...in reverse. He doesn't like to listen to music anymore. At all. But he likes Autechre. I suspect it has more to do with the mathematical aspect of his mind than anything else. I may never ever know now.
I don't believe all these people "grooving out" to this stuff are having a similar experience. I believe there is a level to this "music" the rest of us don't get but not because we're plebians, but rather, because our minds are composed of more chaotic, organic substrates rather than the product of a very specific, mechanically-oriented mathematically sound process, metaphorically speaking. I believe the "Cypher- effect" is a rarity...an exception to the rule and the rest of them are kind of faking a little bit.
What defines music as opposed to a series of aesthetically pleasing sounds? Or are they the same? Pollock's Yellow Island might be art, but is it a picture? Did we forget such a word has a valid application in the art world? Or did we silently agree somewhere along the line that "picture" is too simplistic and sophomoric?
I seriously doubt the lot of us will ever look at a bunch of moving green text composed japanese-style and see Blonde, Brunette, Redhead. Taking the time for a few moments to decipher and appreciate is a fun novelty but most of us will need to log on to www.youporn.com to finish getting off.
And that doesn't make us stupid.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 07:02:11 AM
Navkat, you are totally correct here. LMNO probably only enjoys Autechre for the very reason that it makes other people confused and a little upset when they don't "get it". That should probably not be interpreted to mean that there are actually people who DO "get it".
tl:dr version: Autechre is just noisy crap.
Sonic equivalent of GG Allin pelting the audience with feces, with the sole difference being that GG was listenable?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
I should probably clarify that though I do believe there is objectively good art, I don't think that MY tastes and preferences are what dictates what is or isn't good.
I have seen art which was skillfully executed, yet lacked feeling. I've also seen (and heard) art the was unrefined, yet had something in it... passion, or a conveyance of emotion... that made it better than the execution alone.
Art really is so multi-faceted that it is impossible to pin down.
However, I was at a gallery opening last night that almost everyone I spoke to agreed (in hushed tones) "Did nothing for them", which is gallery opening code (in case anyone sensitive overhears) for "crap". Some art really IS better than other art. Each person can define exactly why only for themselves, but sometimes so many people agree that it becomes inarguable that it is, indeed, bad or good art.
Immediately following that opening I went to another one that was full of some of the most startlingly striking imagery I've seen recently. I mean, it was as it should have been; it was Blue Moon's staff show paired with the Newspace juried show. It was an interesting contrast. One of my favorite pieces was a simple triptych of landscapes in the Grand Tetons. What made it so arresting? I really don't know. But it was. There was another series that was two-frame vignettes, unrelated images tied together with a title. It was amazing.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 12:08:21 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
I should probably clarify that though I do believe there is objectively good art, I don't think that MY tastes and preferences are what dictates what is or isn't good.
I have seen art which was skillfully executed, yet lacked feeling. I've also seen (and heard) art the was unrefined, yet had something in it... passion, or a conveyance of emotion... that made it better than the execution alone.
Art really is so multi-faceted that it is impossible to pin down.
However, I was at a gallery opening last night that almost everyone I spoke to agreed (in hushed tones) "Did nothing for them", which is gallery opening code (in case anyone sensitive overhears) for "crap". Some art really IS better than other art. Each person can define exactly why only for themselves, but sometimes so many people agree that it becomes inarguable that it is, indeed, bad or good art.
Immediately following that opening I went to another one that was full of some of the most startlingly striking imagery I've seen recently. I mean, it was as it should have been; it was Blue Moon's staff show paired with the Newspace juried show. It was an interesting contrast. One of my favorite pieces was a simple triptych of landscapes in the Grand Tetons. What made it so arresting? I really don't know. But it was. There was another series that was two-frame vignettes, unrelated images tied together with a title. It was amazing.
I love this. Coming from someone who
creates beautiful things that touch people, this adds to my frame of reference on the matter.
mitts to you, lady!
Thank you!
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 12:08:21 AMI have seen art which was skillfully executed, yet lacked feeling. I've also seen (and heard) art the was unrefined, yet had something in it... passion, or a conveyance of emotion... that made it better than the execution alone.
I keep finding myself coming back to the thought that music is an illusion only when it makes you feel something. It's as if there's a layer floating above, and obscuring, the audio. Someone will tell you "it's quite simple really", but all that you really notice is what the artist has put there, that isn't actually the sound itself.
Compare that to music that makes you feel nothing. It's like you can trace every note and beat as a primitive object without those indescribable things shifting their way through the song - even if it's fairly complex.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a great artist.
I had this awesome plan of action, too, which involved me making specially prepared shotgun... shot? with paint and tiny slivers of gemstone and pretty rocks and shooting the whole mess at a canvas. BOOM!prettysplat.
Parents said it was a pretty dumb idea, though. :sad:
ETA: And yes, I know it all would have gone through plain old canvas, and I had that figured out too. Put some hardwood on the back, and you ALREADY have the thing mounted in something like a frame. Done deal.
I don't believe there's objectively good art, I'm pretty sure it's entirely subjective. Reason being art is something that happens in your head, not on the canvas or music studio. Art is a reaction to stimulus, not the stimulus itself. There is a great deal of consensus, tho, most people think beethoven is pretty cool but, even then, there's a whole bunch who don't. I find it hard to believe myself but I've actually met people who don't like Motorhead. As for the link in the OP - it was okay but aphex twin does that kind of shit with much more style.
Art is pretty much entirely subjective, from conception to consumption. Craft is objective. Really good art often requires skillful craft.
Good point. There's creating art and there's consuming it. Creating often does require skill but not always. In consuming art there does tend to be a positive reaction to skill (perhaps as a form of art in itself) When I see someone doing something really well the feeling I get is like looking at good art, even if what they're doing isn't traditionally considered as art. You've heard that expression "turning something into an artform", right? Some people do. IMO these people are artists, they just don't think of themselves as such.
But because there's these two aspects to art, creating and consuming they don't necessarily depend on each other. No one creates a really nice sunset but when you look at it, it's art. Creating art is an attempt. You arrange some shapes or colours or sound in a way that seems awesome to you but maybe no one who sees it "gets" it or maybe they do. The "artist" attempts to make art happen in the head of the viewer, via the canvas. That's the voodoo part right there - the better the artist the more people they will touch with this art and the more deeply they will be touched. Skill is definitely going to help there but it'll usually only get you so far. Skill plus heart is a sweet combination.
I don't personally see nature as art, although I definitely see great beauty (and horror) in nature and our environments... in my mind, art is something a creature attempts as a way of translating its experiences and perceptions. Craft is the level of skillfulness or finesse in the medium with which the creature undertakes this translation.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 06, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 12:50:36 PMI have to respectfully disagree. If an "artist" creates "art" that, upon seeing or hearing, you see no intrinsic artistic value in and can only find meaning in it AFTER the artist explains it to you, it may still be art but it's also utter crap. It seems like basically the artistic equivalent of forcing other people to read your LiveJournal. Good art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
Yeah, I heard this before, and it doesn't really work.
Example: Pollock. Is considered art.
According to you, its artistic value only exists because apparently there's people that immediately see intrinsic artistic value in what can not be explained [following your attitude of "non crap" art] as anything but random splotches of paint.
Except that:
- people tend to enjoy Pollock's art more as they learn more about Pollock and his methods
- people who generally do not enjoy random splotches of paint suddenly find themselves intrigued by Pollock's paintings as they learn more about it
- other paintings that actually are random splotches of paint are not held in as high regard as Pollock's, while without the artist's story behind it, they would be functionally equivalent.
Additionally, this attitude is one of the things that Modern Art rebelled against. Or, I'm not good with art history maybe it was dada or post modern or something else, and there was a political aspect to it as well.
But part of the idea is that the process as well as the artist's intent can lend as much artistic value to the art piece as the end product itself.
And it goes much deeper than that. How about art from other cultures? There's things I could not appreciate unless I'd learn about and immerse myself in that culture first. Sure, some things may be pretty all by themselves, but you're not seriously suggesting aesthetics is the only aspect of art that makes it non-crap, right? So I'd learn about that culture and suddenly I could appreciate the delicate way in which a piece of carved wood is painted with reindeer droppings or whatever, which would have been "just crap" without that background knowledge. Same as some tracks by Autechre are just pretty by themselves, and others I could only appreciate after I knew more about how they work.
Or how about, in MoMa I saw framed cartoons with a political bend from Africa, they weren't particularly good or well-drawn. They were decent, good enough, I guess. But knowing a littlebit about Africa's political background (as well as that in this case, MoMa had seen fit to include some plaques explaining--cause you know, american visitors can't be expected to know about these things), the pictures and the content became all that more poignant.
So again,
QuoteGood art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
I do agree there is such a thing, yes (maybe not strictly objectively, but at least shared by the majority of people).
However, if that's the only way something can be Good Art, you're excluding a whole bunch of stuff.
The extra background information can even make Good Art even better.
Oh and then of course there's Kitsch. Which is not Good Art, but it can look really pretty! Or a picture of a beautiful pink and orange sunset. Or a Bob Ross painting. So it goes both ways. I can see something that is extremely pretty (so it does speak to me all on its own) but as I look at it longer I see that that is pretty much all it has to say, because the "artist" never saw fit to put any other layers or meaning into his work.
I can also see how, if you accept art in that way, how it really becomes quite easy to pass of something that actually is utter crap as High Art, as long as you have a good story to go with it. That's a bit of a shitty problem, of course.
But on the other hand, this is nothing new. And on the other other hand this is exactly the sort of paradoxes and conundrums that have been explored by modern and post-modern art movements. Which IMO is highly interesting.
What things have artistic value because of their backstory?
You can't deny that there isn't any art, real art, that is only significant because of its backstory, unless you want to only count art that has stood the test of time, the Bach and the van Gogh stuff.
So the next question becomes, how much artistic value can we pump into some art piece by backstory alone? (again, this is also nothing new)
And then the question becomes, can we pull it off by backstory alone? Which is when you get stuff like white paintings :)
"Self Portrait with Cut ear" does not look like a beautiful painting to me. It actually looks a bit trite and not too terribly well done. However knowing about Van Gogh cutting off his ear and giving it as a gift to the woman he was in love with, a prostitute who did not love him back, ostensibly because he was crazy with syphilis, which he might have got from her, or might have given to her, gives it a whole different layer of poignancy.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 09:10:41 AM
I don't personally see nature as art, although I definitely see great beauty (and horror) in nature and our environments... in my mind, art is something a creature attempts as a way of translating its experiences and perceptions. Craft is the level of skillfulness or finesse in the medium with which the creature undertakes this translation.
Yeah, I get that. What I meant was that when I look at a sunset I appreciate and enjoy it using what seems to me to be the same organ or gland that a Rembrandt or Steve Vai guitar solo would stimulate. That's why, for me at least, there are two kinds of art - man-made and naturally occurring. Man made art has more scope, IMO, because of the potential to communicate a feeling or mood, with intent. When you see a painting sometimes it touches you on an emotional level and you share an intense connection with the artist. This doesn't happen in nature (unless you buy into that whole - built by god - gobshite) but it's still some great art from where I'm sitting.
a flower is made with a very specific purpose in mind. It's a display created to facilitate reproduction, and in that it is not that different from many love songs and other pieces of art. I think a flower is art, the intended audience is a pollinator, not us, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate it.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 08:31:50 AM
Art is pretty much entirely subjective, from conception to consumption. Craft is objective. Really good art often requires skillful craft.
I agree with this statement.
The fact of which things are subjective, and which are not, is totally subjective!!! :fap:
To bring it back to Autechre: I have a (maybe naively, but sincerely) commodious taste in music. That said, I haven't heard them before but I can dig it.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 07, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 06, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 06, 2011, 12:50:36 PMI have to respectfully disagree. If an "artist" creates "art" that, upon seeing or hearing, you see no intrinsic artistic value in and can only find meaning in it AFTER the artist explains it to you, it may still be art but it's also utter crap. It seems like basically the artistic equivalent of forcing other people to read your LiveJournal. Good art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
Yeah, I heard this before, and it doesn't really work.
Example: Pollock. Is considered art.
According to you, its artistic value only exists because apparently there's people that immediately see intrinsic artistic value in what can not be explained [following your attitude of "non crap" art] as anything but random splotches of paint.
Except that:
- people tend to enjoy Pollock's art more as they learn more about Pollock and his methods
- people who generally do not enjoy random splotches of paint suddenly find themselves intrigued by Pollock's paintings as they learn more about it
- other paintings that actually are random splotches of paint are not held in as high regard as Pollock's, while without the artist's story behind it, they would be functionally equivalent.
Additionally, this attitude is one of the things that Modern Art rebelled against. Or, I'm not good with art history maybe it was dada or post modern or something else, and there was a political aspect to it as well.
But part of the idea is that the process as well as the artist's intent can lend as much artistic value to the art piece as the end product itself.
And it goes much deeper than that. How about art from other cultures? There's things I could not appreciate unless I'd learn about and immerse myself in that culture first. Sure, some things may be pretty all by themselves, but you're not seriously suggesting aesthetics is the only aspect of art that makes it non-crap, right? So I'd learn about that culture and suddenly I could appreciate the delicate way in which a piece of carved wood is painted with reindeer droppings or whatever, which would have been "just crap" without that background knowledge. Same as some tracks by Autechre are just pretty by themselves, and others I could only appreciate after I knew more about how they work.
Or how about, in MoMa I saw framed cartoons with a political bend from Africa, they weren't particularly good or well-drawn. They were decent, good enough, I guess. But knowing a littlebit about Africa's political background (as well as that in this case, MoMa had seen fit to include some plaques explaining--cause you know, american visitors can't be expected to know about these things), the pictures and the content became all that more poignant.
So again,
QuoteGood art (and yes, I believe there is objectively such a thing) should speak to you on its own and allow you to appoint your own meaning to it.
I do agree there is such a thing, yes (maybe not strictly objectively, but at least shared by the majority of people).
However, if that's the only way something can be Good Art, you're excluding a whole bunch of stuff.
The extra background information can even make Good Art even better.
Oh and then of course there's Kitsch. Which is not Good Art, but it can look really pretty! Or a picture of a beautiful pink and orange sunset. Or a Bob Ross painting. So it goes both ways. I can see something that is extremely pretty (so it does speak to me all on its own) but as I look at it longer I see that that is pretty much all it has to say, because the "artist" never saw fit to put any other layers or meaning into his work.
I can also see how, if you accept art in that way, how it really becomes quite easy to pass of something that actually is utter crap as High Art, as long as you have a good story to go with it. That's a bit of a shitty problem, of course.
But on the other hand, this is nothing new. And on the other other hand this is exactly the sort of paradoxes and conundrums that have been explored by modern and post-modern art movements. Which IMO is highly interesting.
What things have artistic value because of their backstory?
You can't deny that there isn't any art, real art, that is only significant because of its backstory, unless you want to only count art that has stood the test of time, the Bach and the van Gogh stuff.
So the next question becomes, how much artistic value can we pump into some art piece by backstory alone? (again, this is also nothing new)
And then the question becomes, can we pull it off by backstory alone? Which is when you get stuff like white paintings :)
"Self Portrait with Cut ear" does not look like a beautiful painting to me. It actually looks a bit trite and not too terribly well done. However knowing about Van Gogh cutting off his ear and giving it as a gift to the woman he was in love with, a prostitute who did not love him back, ostensibly because he was crazy with syphilis, which he might have got from her, or might have given to her, gives it a whole different layer of poignancy.
Didn't happen; look it up.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 07, 2011, 09:30:04 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 09:10:41 AM
I don't personally see nature as art, although I definitely see great beauty (and horror) in nature and our environments... in my mind, art is something a creature attempts as a way of translating its experiences and perceptions. Craft is the level of skillfulness or finesse in the medium with which the creature undertakes this translation.
Yeah, I get that. What I meant was that when I look at a sunset I appreciate and enjoy it using what seems to me to be the same organ or gland that a Rembrandt or Steve Vai guitar solo would stimulate. That's why, for me at least, there are two kinds of art - man-made and naturally occurring. Man made art has more scope, IMO, because of the potential to communicate a feeling or mood, with intent. When you see a painting sometimes it touches you on an emotional level and you share an intense connection with the artist. This doesn't happen in nature (unless you buy into that whole - built by god - gobshite) but it's still some great art from where I'm sitting.
That would be you, the viewer, appreciating beauty or at least magnificence.
Art implies an intent to convey something.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 07, 2011, 09:36:20 AM
a flower is made with a very specific purpose in mind. It's a display created to facilitate reproduction, and in that it is not that different from many love songs and other pieces of art. I think a flower is art, the intended audience is a pollinator, not us, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate it.
This whole statement hinges on the existence of a Creator.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 06:12:37 PM
Art implies an intent to convey something.
Does it? I would say, for the most part, "art" is simply applied to the created object itself, implying nothing except that it was indeed created by someone (maybe with the intent to create :p, but nothing more).
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 07, 2011, 09:36:20 AM
a flower is made with a very specific purpose in mind. It's a display created to facilitate reproduction, and in that it is not that different from many love songs and other pieces of art. I think a flower is art, the intended audience is a pollinator, not us, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate it.
This whole statement hinges on the existence of a Creator.
Yeah, agreed. To change your words, BH, a flower develops with a specific way of interacting with the world. You could say it's created in a conceptual way, y'know, by the Forces of Nature or something, but to say it is in reality created, implies a Creator. Actually, saying it conceptually or literally are effectively the same, so I take that back. I guess it comes down to defining your terms, as always.
This might all come down to how one defines "consciousness", whether things like jasmine releasing fragrance in the evening are "conscious". I don't know.
And not to derail, but I read somewhere that what Pollock was actually doing was painting subjects, people, horses, etc., he just held the brush at a distance and splattered to do it. But I've looked at his stuff and I can't find anything.
If flowers attracting bees is art, then dogs fucking is also art. So is taking a shit, or any other biological function.
Art started amongst us primates as purely representational (stone-age through hellenic period). It has evolved enough that we can represent (extremely) abstract thoughts and emotions, so much so that it requires various degrees of viewer participation in order for the act of viewing to generate meaning.
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 07, 2011, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 06:12:37 PM
Art implies an intent to convey something.
Does it? I would say, for the most part, "art" is simply applied to the created object itself, implying nothing except that it was indeed created by someone (maybe with the intent to create :p, but nothing more).
That is far too broad a definition IMO, because it implies that everything from the shirt you're wearing to the keyboard you're typing on is art.
It's very difficult to pin down a definition of art, but in my field, which falls under the umbrella of arts & crafts, art is loosely defined as the original execution of a design, while craft is the reproduction of existing designs using learned techniques.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 07:58:22 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 07, 2011, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 06:12:37 PM
Art implies an intent to convey something.
Does it? I would say, for the most part, "art" is simply applied to the created object itself, implying nothing except that it was indeed created by someone (maybe with the intent to create :p, but nothing more).
That is far too broad a definition IMO, because it implies that everything from the shirt you're wearing to the keyboard you're typing on is art.
It's very difficult to pin down a definition of art, but in my field, which falls under the umbrella of arts & crafts, art is loosely defined as the original execution of a design, while craft is the reproduction of existing designs using learned techniques.
Fair enough. As far as technical definitions go I think that may be the best I've heard. Thanks! :)
I was speaking of the common usage of the word, which is often applied to any created object or even activity, usually to imply a sense of skill or technique. "The Art of War," for example. People often call any object they find pretty, a work of art.
I think my personal favorite (non-technical) definition, is Louis Nizer's "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist."
The origin of the word art denotes a learned skill, so that is also accurate. Many words have more than one meaning.
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 07:42:35 PM
If flowers attracting bees is art, then dogs fucking is also art. So is taking a shit, or any other biological function.
Troof.
Would you say it's a once-removed thing, like Marcel Duchamp calling a urinal a fountain?
Seriously asking, because I'm not sure where the line is.
There is no line. just when you think there is, someone will cross it.
"Art" is a concept invented by brilliant trolls of a bygone age, who decided to create a word that would enter common parlance but remain vaguely defined. The results speak for themselves.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 07, 2011, 09:25:06 PM
There is no line. just when you think there is, someone will cross it.
Quote from: Cainad on August 07, 2011, 09:32:51 PM
"Art" is a concept invented by brilliant trolls of a bygone age, who decided to create a word that would enter common parlance but remain vaguely defined. The results speak for themselves.
Ah. Those make sense. :D
I didn't have time to read this whole thread cause I have to go to work, but I can say, if you understand or "get" synth, then this kind of stuff is easily appreciated. If your mind works in a very normal musical pattern, (like perfect pitch and all that) you probably won't get it at all.
It's all sine waves, strange beats that shouldn't exist and impossible note combinations with glitch.
Personally I love it cause it's as calm and serene as new york city. Amidst all the chaos, hustle and bustle there's a pattern or a flow. There's a low hum like the hive and the noise is the bees buzzing around it. Inside is a sweet sweet honey. You just have to be brave enough to close your eyes and stick your hand in there.
This is one of my favs--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKJnQqVsqw&feature=related
Squid's has a beat. The one in the first post sounded like somebody trying to tune a staticy radio with a cracked speaker.
Nope, there's a beat in that one too.
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 07, 2011, 11:34:52 PM
Nope, there's a beat in that one too.
Parts of it, yeah. A beat made out of static and stuff shorting out.
Still trying to catch on to this stuff. All I can say is I managed to get to the halfway point this time.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 08, 2011, 12:05:14 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 07, 2011, 11:34:52 PM
Nope, there's a beat in that one too.
Parts of it, yeah. A beat made out of static and stuff shorting out.
YEAHMAN, HARD FUCKIN COARRRR.
On another note, I just noticed we are both Horrormonkeys. I wonder what this means. Is it like a zodiac sign? WHAT SECRET SYSTEM OF HOLY NAMES HAS ROGER BEEN USING?
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 07:42:35 PM
If flowers attracting bees is art, then dogs fucking is also art. So is taking a shit, or any other biological function.
Agreed.
Art (not to sum it up too much) is the creation of things whose purpose is (generally speaking) to mirror other things and (possibly) elicit feelings and stuff like that. And also some other stuff...like to just look pretty and stuff. Except when it isn't.
Willem de Kooning and Pollock can be art because it's like, all about composure n stuff and just looking nice. There's nothing to "get," It's well composed and looks fantastic.
If you wanna call Gantz Graf "art," then it is. The sounds + visual stuff certainly qualify as Contempo art (I've seen some SHITE in the Contempo museums in NY and Chicago. I mean, Gantz Graf is waaaaay better than like some out-of-tune shreiking banshee cover of
Wikkid Game (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtxv2_chris-isaak-wicked-game_music) while images of a woman in a flowered bathing suit swim in and out of the picture), so...yeah. That.
Okay, in all seriousness: I like my visual art to be just that: visually appealing. Sometimes, it's more. Sometimes it tells a story. I don't always
need to know that the innocent, beautiful, tender girl in the picture was a cared-for slave girl who died in horrible suffering during the famines and unrest of the Civil War just six years later to be moved by the luminosity of her face (the stray hair over her cheek in her eyes as she leant down to scrub the floor) to "get it." It's nice to know the story but it's not
necessary. However, I'm more educated than some...more
trained, I suppose. Perhaps my foreknowledge that "this is an antebellum expression" comes through whether I'm aware or not.
I like my music to move me to dance...or rock out. Sometimes
it tells a story--doesn't have to be a ballad, just the words "In my arms baby, yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoaTea06mG4&feature=player_detailpage#t=64s)" looped over and over does beautiful, sexy, fantastic things to me. I fill in the blanks where the Producer/musician left spaces. Art to me is like that.
I can use the art thing as a primer to basically comprehend the Autechre experience, but that's where it stops for me. I can hear the sounds, I can see the visuals. I don't get that welling up feeling when something just touches soft places, you know?
Perhaps it certainly
is because I am not
trained.I miss my friend Red Robot (the aforementioned prodigy). We had a smart-people understanding once. We had a fight. It was super dumb: I acted dumb, he acted dumb, I acted dumb some more. He was gonna explain this to me and now that's lost, possibly forever. I may never "get it" because I may never meet another musical/mathematical hybrid mind. :(
I give validity to the possibility...and I
still believe that the overwhelming majority of Autechre "fans" are faking it and are full of shit.
ITT: STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE
I enjoy autechre. I enjoy the complexity, and I notice new things every time I listen. I understand other people don't, but I don't laugh and call them idiots for it. Everyone has different tastes, deal with it spags. :argh!:
Who the crap called you an idiot?
Quote from: navkat on August 08, 2011, 03:02:57 AM
Who the crap called you an idiot?
No, I was referring to the generic autechre fan, who ridicules people for not liking autechre. Nobody called me an idiot. Sorry for being confusing, I am tired :oops:
Happens to the best of us. :)
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 07, 2011, 07:42:35 PM
If flowers attracting bees is art, then dogs fucking is also art. So is taking a shit, or any other biological function.
Troof.
Would you say it's a once-removed thing, like Marcel Duchamp calling a urinal a fountain?
Seriously asking, because I'm not sure where the line is.
I'm not sure there's a line. Art is awfully hard to define, but in general it's something made with intent other than sheer practicality; at least, the original iteration of that something.
Quote from: Cainad on August 07, 2011, 09:32:51 PM
"Art" is a concept invented by brilliant trolls of a bygone age, who decided to create a word that would enter common parlance but remain vaguely defined. The results speak for themselves.
:lulz: Also this.
Quote from: navkat on August 08, 2011, 12:36:15 AM
Art (not to sum it up too much) is the creation of things whose purpose is (generally speaking) to mirror other things and (possibly) elicit feelings and stuff like that. And also some other stuff...like to just look pretty and stuff. Except when it isn't.
This is an awfully good explanation as well.
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on August 07, 2011, 10:21:24 PM
I didn't have time to read this whole thread cause I have to go to work, but I can say, if you understand or "get" synth, then this kind of stuff is easily appreciated. If your mind works in a very normal musical pattern, (like perfect pitch and all that) you probably won't get it at all.
It's all sine waves, strange beats that shouldn't exist and impossible note combinations with glitch.
Personally I love it cause it's as calm and serene as new york city. Amidst all the chaos, hustle and bustle there's a pattern or a flow. There's a low hum like the hive and the noise is the bees buzzing around it. Inside is a sweet sweet honey. You just have to be brave enough to close your eyes and stick your hand in there.
This is one of my favs--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKJnQqVsqw&feature=related
This i could probably have playing in the background while I did research or something, though the static at certain points is somewhat irritating.
The one from the OP, while interesting in a certain sense, got incredibly abrasive in very short order. So like most things, it varies from instance to instance.
Hmmm. An interesting question.
On this track, it appears that Autechre is working outside standard "song" structure, so we have to approach it in a different way.
Given that the first minute or so has a recognizable rhythm, which then seems to collapse into digitally distorted tone manipulation, it brings to mind nothing so much as Einsturzende Neubauten, and their "angry ambient/destroy the concept of music" style. By what I can gather from Trip's post, they also appear to be fucking around with Aleatoric music a la John Cage (who was annoying people with electronics since the 50s). Clearly, they are making no concessions to the majority of Western Music theory, be it formal or be it pop music. That puts us firmly in the genre of "soundscape", which has arguably the broadest possible definition of music this side of said Mr Cage ("Music is intended Noise").
That's all fine and dandy, sure. But it seems that the question is, "Should I like it, and why"?
Well, here's the secret: You don't have to like it. It's just another band, trying to do something original. But what I feel is more important is to clearly state why you don't like it, without an ad hominem attack. You've got a lot to choose from with this track... There's no discernable melody, the rhythms are inconsistent and non-repetitive (even in the first "movement" (I hear at least three distinct sections here) the beats do not repeat exactly in standard time), and the tones themselves are overwhelmingly dissonant.
But the main complaint I have is that there is no "arc" to it. I prefer my music to have some narrative structure, where (to put it in the basest terms) one set of noises has a relationship with another set of noises. If, for example, the semi-rhythm of the first section was altered and re-introduced in the last section, it would (to me), make a more satisfying piece of music.
I will say, however, that if your friends can't explain to you exactly why they like it, then there's a distinct possibility that they are merely being pretentious.
Quote from: navkat on August 06, 2011, 06:18:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyJfHU4GoOQ
"Makes sense."*
*Thelonious Monk's detailed response to Allen Ginsburg when asked what he thought of 'Howl'.
Ah, John Cage had some "wild notions" back in the day with allowing 3 minutes of audience shuffling, sniffs, etc. to be the whole of his piece...
I don't have a dog in this show, but I enjoy reading all the viewpoints herein. Personally, I have always thought that there's a time and place for any sort of music that is created as such. Same with "sounds" that are generated for display (whether it is demonstration only or entertainment).
Any other distinction seems to be in the ear/eye/brain of the beholder.
I like what was said about objectivity vs. subjectivity, too.
There's a simple formula with "art" - "I like it", "I don't like it", "Sometimes I'm in the mood to like it", "Sometimes not" - these may be contrary to each other with different people. This is perfectly normal. Trying to change the other's opinion by intelligent debate is futile, in all but a handfull of cases where your "opponent" is particularly weak minded and open to suggestion.
Sometimes someone will seem to hate a piece of art, for whatever reason, to the point where someone else's liking of it seems, to them, like a personal affront or attack. I've seen people react angrily, at me, because I like something. Those arguments, whilst having the potential to provide hours upon hours of epic lulz, never really go anywhere interesting.
As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.
What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying. It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.
OK, but you DO enjoy that people get confused and/or upset when you have them listen to stuff like that, right?
I know I would. In fact, I do, it's just that I use technical death metal to achieve that effect rather than asymmetrical electronica.
I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."
The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'... (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.
Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...
Yeah! Sometimes I just like stuff though but, yeah, for the most part it's cool to look a bit deeper.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 05:38:39 PM
As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.
What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying. It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.
Why? Everybody has different priorities and devotes their energy to certain things. Why don't you make glass pipes, LMNO? Can you explain or justify it beyond "I don't want to"? Or "I chose to put my time and energy into other arenas"?
Is "It is not aesthetically pleasing to my particular taste" a good enough explanation? Because it's just a wordier way of saying "I don't like it".
I don't like modern jazz, and the reason is because I don't like it. I don't even enjoy thinking or talking about why I do or don't like certain music, because it feels like a trivial waste of time and energy over something that is completely unimportant to me. Is that a stifling of communication or thought? Am I intellectually lazy? Or are you just insecure because other people don't prioritize the same things you do, and it makes you afraid that they might not think your priorities are worthy?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 08, 2011, 05:46:36 PM
OK, but you DO enjoy that people get confused and/or upset when you have them listen to stuff like that, right?
I know I would. In fact, I do, it's just that I use technical death metal to achieve that effect rather than asymmetrical electronica.
I usually keep that stuff in reserve, to use whenever someone starts babbling on about how "weird" the music they like is. And the fun thing is, even if they say things like, "I listen to weird music like Autechre", you can always counter with The Shaggs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN9UT2zF8c8).
In the same way, I usually keep the Stooges' "I Got A Right" (1969), Motorhead's "The Hammer" (1980), and Bad Brains' "Big Takeover" (1982) in reserve for when people brag about how they like how "heavy and powerful" today's music is.
Quote from: Nigel on August 08, 2011, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 05:38:39 PM
As I said, I don't really care if someone does or doesn't like something that I do or don't like.
What really bothers me is when they can't explain why, or don't even bother trying. It just seems lazy to me, and it stifles communicaton and thought.
Why? Everybody has different priorities and devotes their energy to certain things. Why don't you make glass pipes, LMNO? Can you explain or justify it beyond "I don't want to"? Or "I chose to put my time and energy into other arenas"?
Is "It is not aesthetically pleasing to my particular taste" a good enough explanation? Because it's just a wordier way of saying "I don't like it".
I don't like modern jazz, and the reason is because I don't like it. I don't even enjoy thinking or talking about why I do or don't like certain music, because it feels like a trivial waste of time and energy over something that is completely unimportant to me. Is that a stifling of communication or thought? Am I intellectually lazy? Or are you just insecure because other people don't prioritize the same things you do, and it makes you afraid that they might not think your priorities are worthy?
Would an adequate response be, "It bothers me because it bothers me"?
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 05:48:11 PM
I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."
The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'... (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.
Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...
I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you. I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.
Levis are art. Especially a pair of black 501's with my ass in them.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 08, 2011, 06:09:44 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 05:48:11 PM
I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."
The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'... (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.
Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...
I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you. I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.
I think you're mistaking Concept Art and Design for a final product, classic Map/Territory mistake. There's where I see that difference:
The Tempest is a work of art. Does that make every single cheap pulp paperpack copy of it sold for $3 "A Work Of Art"?
[I gotta admit, I didn't have a clear concept of what a Concept Artist did before attending AI]
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 06:28:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 08, 2011, 06:09:44 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 05:48:11 PM
I agree with LMNO, and I like this phrasing of "Juxtaposing STUFF into interesting relationships."
The definition means you cannot be neutral about the piece. Levi Jeans aren't 'art'... (although I do think you have to measure on both the individual and cultural-narrative levels both)... Warhol recognized that the soup can wasn't art purely because of context, but that it would take a genius artist to re-contextualize it enough that it refused to be neutral anymore.
Art forces you to an opinion, even if you don't bother to investigate the new narrative when it appears (LMNO's "What really bothers me")...
I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you. I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.
I think you're mistaking Concept Art and Design for a final product, classic Map/Territory mistake. There's where I see that difference: The Tempest is a work of art. Does that make every single cheap pulp paperpack copy of it sold for $3 "A Work Of Art"?
[I gotta admit, I didn't have a clear concept of what a Concept Artist did before attending AI]
That $3 paperback is art in the same way that a print of a Van Gogh painting is art. Same for Levi's or a soup can, or what have you. A reproduction of art is a lot closer to being art than a map is to being the territory.
Well, fuck, then we're back to "anything touched/formed by human hands", and haven't we rendered the term meaningless?
Or have we all been arguing a fictional binary function where-as reality is shades of probability........
Does Art exist in some strange Quantum Superposition... oh shit, did I have to go there? :lulz:
If we look at how the definition of "ART" has been trending since the dawn of civilization, we must necessarily broaden our scope to incorporate artists who attempt to cross those boundries of what is acceptable. Eventually, we have to water it down to phrases like, "art is what you can get away with" or "art is deliberatly intended change within a context". And even those definitions may prove to be inadequate.
That's why my definition is entirely subjective. Art isn't the thing I experience, it's how I experience it. Art is a reaction. It isn't even necessarily a reaction to something created, on purpose, by an artist. I look at shit, or I listen to shit and I judge it art, in my head.
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Does it involve dogs playing poker?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Quantum Superposition [wiki]: if it is possible for a physical system to be in some particular configuration, and if it is simultaneously possible for the system to be in a different configuration or configurations, then the system is in an indefinite state that is an overlapping of all of the possible configurations.
We now need to define 'system' and 'configuration' well enough for our purposes......
I'm loling at how pretentious this thread is getting. :lulz:
Freeky,
Not an intellectual, psuedo or otherwise.
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on August 08, 2011, 08:04:45 PM
I'm loling at how pretentious this thread is getting. :lulz:
Freeky,
Not an intellectual, psuedo or otherwise.
This is just way too underground for you, Freeky.
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 07:19:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Quantum Superposition [wiki]: if it is possible for a physical system to be in some particular configuration, and if it is simultaneously possible for the system to be in a different configuration or configurations, then the system is in an indefinite state that is an overlapping of all of the possible configurations.
We now need to define 'system' and 'configuration' well enough for our purposes......
Tell me that wasn't said with a straight fucking face.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2011, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 07:19:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Quantum Superposition [wiki]: if it is possible for a physical system to be in some particular configuration, and if it is simultaneously possible for the system to be in a different configuration or configurations, then the system is in an indefinite state that is an overlapping of all of the possible configurations.
We now need to define 'system' and 'configuration' well enough for our purposes......
Tell me that wasn't said with a straight fucking face.
:lulz:
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on August 08, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2011, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 08, 2011, 07:19:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Quantum Superposition [wiki]: if it is possible for a physical system to be in some particular configuration, and if it is simultaneously possible for the system to be in a different configuration or configurations, then the system is in an indefinite state that is an overlapping of all of the possible configurations.
We now need to define 'system' and 'configuration' well enough for our purposes......
Tell me that wasn't said with a straight fucking face.
:lulz:
:lulz::1fap:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
subjectively, it is and it isn't but objectively it isn't until everyone agrees that it is.
This thread has degenerated into sheer banal wankery.
To be fair, it kind of started out that way, too.
DIS FREAD GIVS ME :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 02:56:55 PM
Hmmm. An interesting question.
On this track, it appears that Autechre is working outside standard "song" structure, so we have to approach it in a different way.
Given that the first minute or so has a recognizable rhythm, which then seems to collapse into digitally distorted tone manipulation, it brings to mind nothing so much as Einsturzende Neubauten, and their "angry ambient/destroy the concept of music" style. By what I can gather from Trip's post, they also appear to be fucking around with Aleatoric music a la John Cage (who was annoying people with electronics since the 50s). Clearly, they are making no concessions to the majority of Western Music theory, be it formal or be it pop music. That puts us firmly in the genre of "soundscape", which has arguably the broadest possible definition of music this side of said Mr Cage ("Music is intended Noise").
That's all fine and dandy, sure. But it seems that the question is, "Should I like it, and why"?
Well, here's the secret: You don't have to like it. It's just another band, trying to do something original. But what I feel is more important is to clearly state why you don't like it, without an ad hominem attack. You've got a lot to choose from with this track... There's no discernable melody, the rhythms are inconsistent and non-repetitive (even in the first "movement" (I hear at least three distinct sections here) the beats do not repeat exactly in standard time), and the tones themselves are overwhelmingly dissonant.
But the main complaint I have is that there is no "arc" to it. I prefer my music to have some narrative structure, where (to put it in the basest terms) one set of noises has a relationship with another set of noises. If, for example, the semi-rhythm of the first section was altered and re-introduced in the last section, it would (to me), make a more satisfying piece of music.
I will say, however, that if your friends can't explain to you exactly why they like it, then there's a distinct possibility that they are merely being pretentious.
Stopped reading after this post.
Excellent analysis, LMNO. [/fread]
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2011, 07:13:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Does it involve dogs playing poker?
Someone was bound to go there and it was bound to be you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 08:38:05 PM
To be fair, it kind of started out that way, too.
IT DID NOT.
I really
would like to know what the deal is with this track. Not all of us are musically trained and I was genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Ass.
Being able to say "I don't like it because there's no melody" is difficult to do. "
Is that the reason I don't care for this? what else is it? Do I really not
like it?"
I don't not like it...I don't
like it but I'm not 100% able to say I
dislike it (I don't think I dislike anything, actually) I don't "get" it. Maybe there's more to it and maybe there isn't.
I was hoping you could...
illuminate me.
I don't trust many semantically inclined, batshit-about-music, smart motherfuckers to tell me the fucking
truth and I don't need some PBR-drinking, hornrimmed fuckhead in skinny jeans running around with a 8mm and a membership card to the amateur avant-garde filmmakers club of Mobile, AL to inform me that I don't comprehend that it's about
form or some junk unless it's really that. Where am I supposed to go for the skinny on this, eh? Hipster runoff? (http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/) RIGHT?
RIGHT???GOD! Don't be such a jerk!
Jerk.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
it is to you and it is not to me.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 08, 2011, 08:22:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
subjectively, it is and it isn't but objectively it isn't until everyone agrees that it is.
by that definition nothing is art
In regards to the mass-produced copies of art thing, I'm actually going to go ahead and use Nigel's definition (and hopefully I understand it correctly), because I think it's the most practical one. As long as the copy is simply a reproduction, it is craft. If a person painted an exact replica of a Van Gogh, it would still be craft.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 08, 2011, 06:09:44 PM
I think the designers who designed the soupcan (and it's label) might disagree with you. I know the designers of Levi Jeans would.
a) The design for the can and jeans would be art. The mass-produced objects themselves would have been craftwork.
b) Calling it craft doesn't mean it can't be passionately and skillfully made, and shouldn't be offensive.
Quote from: navkat on August 09, 2011, 06:03:32 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 08:38:05 PM
To be fair, it kind of started out that way, too.
IT DID NOT.
I really would like to know what the deal is with this track. Not all of us are musically trained and I was genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Ass.
Being able to say "I don't like it because there's no melody" is difficult to do. "Is that the reason I don't care for this? what else is it? Do I really not like it?"
I don't not like it...I don't like it but I'm not 100% able to say I dislike it (I don't think I dislike anything, actually) I don't "get" it. Maybe there's more to it and maybe there isn't.
I was hoping you could...illuminate me.
I don't trust many semantically inclined, batshit-about-music, smart motherfuckers to tell me the fucking truth and I don't need some PBR-drinking, hornrimmed fuckhead in skinny jeans running around with a 8mm and a membership card to the amateur avant-garde filmmakers club of Mobile, AL to inform me that I don't comprehend that it's about form or some junk unless it's really that. Where am I supposed to go for the skinny on this, eh? Hipster runoff? (http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/) RIGHT?
RIGHT???
GOD! Don't be such a jerk!
Jerk.
Oh, Lord. Hipster Runoff. What a wanker.
Anyway, there isn't really much to "get" about the track, if you take the process of how it was created off the table.
- It lacks structure
- It lacks melody
- It lacks rhythm
- It uses various kinds of digital distortion
- The distortion leads to a lot of piercing high frequencies
So the end result is a track that is both completely unpredictable (which can challenge/please the brain) and also repeatable (by hitting play again). Which means you can get to a point where you're pretty sure what's coming next, but the amount of information being presented makes it difficult to predict with complete accuracy (which again, challenges/pleases the brain).
Have you heard any of Eno's
Music For Airports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLh3WanSfg&feature=related)? It's similar to the Autechre track in that it is system oriented (various lengths of tape, looped so that they intersect each other at random intervals), and has no melody, rhythm, or structure. The main difference seems to be that the sounds are soothing rather than abrasive. Take a listen to the Eno track, and let me know what you think. We can probably narrow things down from there.
Quote from: navkat on August 06, 2011, 06:18:25 AM
I was born with a natural ear and (from what I've been told) perfect pitch (I used to hum the dishwasher, cars and refrigerator as a child)
Not that this adds anything to the discussion. Are you sure about the above?
Generally, absolute pitch implies some or all of the following abilities when done without reference to an external standard:[4]
Identify by name individual pitches (e.g. A, B, C♯) played on various instruments
Name the key of a given piece of tonal music just by listening (without reference to an external tone)
Identify and name all the tones of a given chord or other tonal mass
Accurately sing a given pitch without an external reference
Name the pitches of common everyday noises such as car horns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
My niece is an opera singer with Perfect (or Absolute pitch). Her choir director uses her voice as a reference to tune the rest of the choir. She can identify any note you play and can reproduce any note you ask her to sing.
Not that this has anything to do with aesthetics, definitions of art etc. But I thought I'd ask.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 08, 2011, 05:46:36 PM
OK, but you DO enjoy that people get confused and/or upset when you have them listen to stuff like that, right?
I know I would. In fact, I do, it's just that I use technical death metal to achieve that effect rather than asymmetrical electronica.
I used to enjoy that a lot, when I was younger. But after a while, I think I got enough fun out of it :)
I do still like to play it for people as an example of "really strange music" when it comes up, but that's different.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
If ECH says Grolsch tastes like piss and I tell him that he must have been born with malfunctioning tastebuds, who is right?
Quote from: navkat on August 09, 2011, 06:03:32 AMQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 08:38:05 PMTo be fair, it kind of started out that way, too.
IT DID NOT.
I really would like to know what the deal is with this track. Not all of us are musically trained and I was genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Ass.
Being able to say "I don't like it because there's no melody" is difficult to do. "Is that the reason I don't care for this? what else is it? Do I really not like it?"
I don't not like it...I don't like it but I'm not 100% able to say I dislike it (I don't think I dislike anything, actually) I don't "get" it. Maybe there's more to it and maybe there isn't.
I was hoping you could...illuminate me.
Well I tried to give my best and most honest and clear explanation as to why somebody could like this track. I like other tracks by AE a lot better, but this one combined with the video is pretty swote (IMO).
I also think LMNO gave his best explanation and really wasn't too much of a jerk about it (though I can imagine the "if you can't explain it" part to be taken that way--though it doesn't bother me)
I hope I helped somehow?
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
If ECH says Grolsch tastes like piss and I tell him that he must have been born with malfunctioning tastebuds, who is right?
ECH, because Grolsch
does taste like piss.
Autechre are trolling you. Modern, abstract art is trolling on a mass scale.
Dilemma resolved.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
Have you heard any of Eno's Music For Airports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLh3WanSfg&feature=related)? It's similar to the Autechre track in that it is system oriented (various lengths of tape, looped so that they intersect each other at random intervals), and has no melody, rhythm, or structure. The main difference seems to be that the sounds are soothing rather than abrasive. Take a listen to the Eno track, and let me know what you think. We can probably narrow things down from there.
I didn't like
Music For Airports, for some reason (I could give a lengthy explanation, which I'll skip but kinda boils down to there's ambient music that I like a LOT better).
In fact I think I have to say I like this AE track better, if you can compare the two. But then I prefer (in the category of sounding somewhat the same) Squarepusher's
Ultravisitor and even more
Come on my selector (the latter I will actually dance to) (and incidentally it's also got James Brown breakbeat samples).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
If ECH says Grolsch tastes like piss and I tell him that he must have been born with malfunctioning tastebuds, who is right?
ECH, because Grolsch does taste like piss.
Aha!
In the good tradition of SCIENCE I shall have to revise my hypothesis.
All Americans must have been born with malfunctioning tastebuds.
(Some of them don't even like liquorice!)
Quote from: Cain on August 09, 2011, 03:51:53 PM
Autechre are trolling you. Modern, abstract art is trolling on a mass scale.
Dilemma resolved.
Thread over. Cain wins.
I'm glad to say I can't offer an opinion on whether or not Grolsch tastes like piss. I can say it tastes a bit like a skunk smells, but I blame that on it being in green bottles that are not properly protected from the light and i expect it would be better if properly handled.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
If ECH says Grolsch tastes like piss and I tell him that he must have been born with malfunctioning tastebuds, who is right?
(Since I intend to ignore everything BH ever says here)
In all fairness, I can't categorically say that Grolsch tastes like skunk piss because I've never had it in Europe. I don't know if it's imported directly or brewed here under license, but I do know that being in a green bottle doesn't help its cause.
I also know that the Heineken that you buy in the states is putrid crap whereas the Heineken you get in the islands is delicious nectar of the gods.
In short, whenever I finally make my way over to the old world, Trip, I will give you every opportunity to change my mind.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
That makes me imagine an in-between state twixt thinking an artwork is good and thinking it's bad - call it aesthetic-agnostic. "There is not enough information to me to make a claim that this artwork is good or that it's bad, although I am open to further evidence."
And then the strong aesthetic-agnostic would claim it will never be possible for us to know whether art is good or bad.
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 09, 2011, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
That makes me imagine an in-between state twixt thinking an artwork is good and thinking it's bad - call it aesthetic-agnostic. "There is not enough information to me to make a claim that this artwork is good or that it's bad, although I am open to further evidence."
And then the strong aesthetic-agnostic would claim it will never be possible for us to know whether art is good or bad.
You leapfrogged the actual question in order to get to the Excluded Middle argument you so desperately wanted to make.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 09, 2011, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
That makes me imagine an in-between state twixt thinking an artwork is good and thinking it's bad - call it aesthetic-agnostic. "There is not enough information to me to make a claim that this artwork is good or that it's bad, although I am open to further evidence."
And then the strong aesthetic-agnostic would claim it will never be possible for us to know whether art is good or bad.
You leapfrogged the actual question in order to get to the Excluded Middle argument you so desperately wanted to make.
I was noticing that to.
Side note, I have been following this discussion with great interest. Continue with the debate! 8)
ECH, sure thing :) I knew I should have tried a Grolsch from the USA supermarkets when I was there ...
Additionally, I don't like the proper Heineken here that much either. It's not bad, a tad too sweet maybe, and being the largest brand and how it brands itself doesn't help either. Same goes for Amstel, kind of. Except Amstel has a distinctive flavour that I don't like in the first glass but gets better/less noticeable after, while Heineken starts out bland and tends to get worse as you drink more of it.
And once more I'll point out that these are not mere opinions, but hard and objective facts. Failure to agree with them means that you just don't "get it", like Autechre. Who are British. So what do they know about beer, anyway.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2011, 04:33:09 PM
And once more I'll point out that these are not mere opinions, but hard and objective facts. Failure to agree with them means that you just don't "get it", like Autechre. Who are British. So what do they know about beer, anyway.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 09, 2011, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
That makes me imagine an in-between state twixt thinking an artwork is good and thinking it's bad - call it aesthetic-agnostic. "There is not enough information to me to make a claim that this artwork is good or that it's bad, although I am open to further evidence."
And then the strong aesthetic-agnostic would claim it will never be possible for us to know whether art is good or bad.
You leapfrogged the actual question in order to get to the Excluded Middle argument you so desperately wanted to make.
I wasn't making an argument - that was actually a joke.
NO JOKING ALLOWED!
\
:hashishim:
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 09, 2011, 04:35:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on August 09, 2011, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
That makes me imagine an in-between state twixt thinking an artwork is good and thinking it's bad - call it aesthetic-agnostic. "There is not enough information to me to make a claim that this artwork is good or that it's bad, although I am open to further evidence."
And then the strong aesthetic-agnostic would claim it will never be possible for us to know whether art is good or bad.
You leapfrogged the actual question in order to get to the Excluded Middle argument you so desperately wanted to make.
I wasn't making an argument - that was actually a joke.
DAMN YOU POE! :argh!:
Quote from: navkat on August 09, 2011, 05:47:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 08, 2011, 07:13:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2011, 07:11:20 PM
But if I say something is art, and you say something isn't, then is it art, or not?
Does it involve dogs playing poker?
Someone was bound to go there and it was bound to be you.
I gotta be me.
Quote from: navkat on August 09, 2011, 06:03:32 AM
GOD! Don't be such a jerk!
Jerk.
Um, not to be a jerk myself (I am a paragon of civility, after all), but just where exactly do you think you are?
Since this thread has reached something approaching salvation, I wanted to address the popular misconception that something is only "art" if it's good. This is not the case. It is art if it was created with the intention of being art, even if it's terrible art. And there is such a thing as bad art. Bad art is different from art which is hated, which may be very, very good art indeed, if the intention was to make people upset and angry.
For anyone who is truly unfamiliar with bad art, visit MOBA: http://www.museumofbadart.org/index.php
Quote from: Nigel on August 09, 2011, 05:14:22 PM
Since this thread has reached something approaching salvation, I wanted to address the popular misconception that something is only "art" if it's good. This is not the case. It is art if it was created with the intention of being art, even if it's terrible art. And there is such a thing as bad art. Bad art is different from art which is hated, which may be very, very good art indeed, if the intention was to make people upset and angry.
For anyone who is truly unfamiliar with bad art, visit MOBA: http://www.museumofbadart.org/index.php
Yes, the famous Belgian artist Jan Oort turned the field of bad art into his very own mileu, back in the dadaist period. Unfortunately, he got blamed for comet impacts and was killed in World War I, along with all the other dadaist masters.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2011, 04:33:09 PM
ECH, sure thing :) I knew I should have tried a Grolsch from the USA supermarkets when I was there ...
Additionally, I don't like the proper Heineken here that much either. It's not bad, a tad too sweet maybe, and being the largest brand and how it brands itself doesn't help either. Same goes for Amstel, kind of. Except Amstel has a distinctive flavour that I don't like in the first glass but gets better/less noticeable after, while Heineken starts out bland and tends to get worse as you drink more of it.
And once more I'll point out that these are not mere opinions, but hard and objective facts. Failure to agree with them means that you just don't "get it", like Autechre. Who are British. So what do they know about beer, anyway.
Do you know why the British like warm beer?
The same people that make their cars make their refrigerators.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2011, 05:16:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 09, 2011, 05:14:22 PM
Since this thread has reached something approaching salvation, I wanted to address the popular misconception that something is only "art" if it's good. This is not the case. It is art if it was created with the intention of being art, even if it's terrible art. And there is such a thing as bad art. Bad art is different from art which is hated, which may be very, very good art indeed, if the intention was to make people upset and angry.
For anyone who is truly unfamiliar with bad art, visit MOBA: http://www.museumofbadart.org/index.php
Yes, the famous Belgian artist Jan Oort turned the field of bad art into his very own mileu, back in the dadaist period. Unfortunately, he got blamed for comet impacts and was killed in World War I, along with all the other dadaist masters.
:lulz: You, sir, are an
artist.
Quote from: Nigel on August 09, 2011, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2011, 05:16:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 09, 2011, 05:14:22 PM
Since this thread has reached something approaching salvation, I wanted to address the popular misconception that something is only "art" if it's good. This is not the case. It is art if it was created with the intention of being art, even if it's terrible art. And there is such a thing as bad art. Bad art is different from art which is hated, which may be very, very good art indeed, if the intention was to make people upset and angry.
For anyone who is truly unfamiliar with bad art, visit MOBA: http://www.museumofbadart.org/index.php
Yes, the famous Belgian artist Jan Oort turned the field of bad art into his very own mileu, back in the dadaist period. Unfortunately, he got blamed for comet impacts and was killed in World War I, along with all the other dadaist masters.
:lulz: You, sir, are an artist.
Thank you.
And my chosen canvass is America™. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on August 09, 2011, 05:14:22 PM
Since this thread has reached something approaching salvation, I wanted to address the popular misconception that something is only "art" if it's good. This is not the case. It is art if it was created with the intention of being art, even if it's terrible art. And there is such a thing as bad art. Bad art is different from art which is hated, which may be very, very good art indeed, if the intention was to make people upset and angry.
For anyone who is truly unfamiliar with bad art, visit MOBA: http://www.museumofbadart.org/index.php
MOBA is one of my favorite places in Boston, period. It's
so good.
Quote from: Mangrove on August 09, 2011, 03:24:23 PM
Quote from: navkat on August 06, 2011, 06:18:25 AM
I was born with a natural ear and (from what I've been told) perfect pitch (I used to hum the dishwasher, cars and refrigerator as a child)
Not that this adds anything to the discussion. Are you sure about the above?
Generally, absolute pitch implies some or all of the following abilities when done without reference to an external standard:[4]
Identify by name individual pitches (e.g. A, B, C♯) played on various instruments
Name the key of a given piece of tonal music just by listening (without reference to an external tone)
Identify and name all the tones of a given chord or other tonal mass
Accurately sing a given pitch without an external reference
Name the pitches of common everyday noises such as car horns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
My niece is an opera singer with Perfect (or Absolute pitch). Her choir director uses her voice as a reference to tune the rest of the choir. She can identify any note you play and can reproduce any note you ask her to sing.
Not that this has anything to do with aesthetics, definitions of art etc. But I thought I'd ask.
No, I am not sure about the above. As far as the correct definition goes, I can't name the note because I'm untrained. I've known for some time I have an ear that transcends that of those around me and for years, I believed this was just a quirky side effect of being smarter than those around me. I could never understand why people would hum the wrong notes or "forget" a song's melody in recall when the sounds were so clear in my own head...like aural photographic memory. I could "hone in" and hum the strangest mechanical noises and annoy the shit out of caretakers who would giggle at first and then scream "STOP THAT" after I began to switch to different "notes" in the harmonic sound of the refrigerator or leaf blower or whatev.
I have no formal training. I'm also not as good at vocally reproducing sounds as I once was simply because the equipment (larynx) is unpracticed and getting older. I can still
hear if I'm off and I can hear what the note is
supposed to be if I crack and miss it.
I have a note that's "my" note. It's the same every time. When I wake up in the morning, I will hum the same note as when I went to bed. I've tested this with a voice recorder.
I don't know what that means. I assume it's the raw materials needed for perfect pitch if only I'd been allowed to explore it in younger years.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
Oh, Lord. Hipster Runoff. What a wanker.
Anyway, there isn't really much to "get" about the track, if you take the process of how it was created off the table.
- It lacks structure
- It lacks melody
- It lacks rhythm
- It uses various kinds of digital distortion
- The distortion leads to a lot of piercing high frequencies
So the end result is a track that is both completely unpredictable (which can challenge/please the brain) and also repeatable (by hitting play again). Which means you can get to a point where you're pretty sure what's coming next, but the amount of information being presented makes it difficult to predict with complete accuracy (which again, challenges/pleases the brain).
Have you heard any of Eno's Music For Airports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLh3WanSfg&feature=related)? It's similar to the Autechre track in that it is system oriented (various lengths of tape, looped so that they intersect each other at random intervals), and has no melody, rhythm, or structure. The main difference seems to be that the sounds are soothing rather than abrasive. Take a listen to the Eno track, and let me know what you think. We can probably narrow things down from there.
Okay, Music For Airports I "get." Not my cuppa but it's
ambient. It's
soothing. I have words to describe. I have niches to classify. It
fits somewhere and can deal with it.
I guess I'm questioning my own open-mindedness: do I fail to understand/like Gantz Graf simply because I can't force it to fit into my own concept of what music is supposed to be? To find words to
describe it? Is it that my mind requires labels and neat, little boxes for things?
Or is it truly because it isn't music? Or do I simply not
like it?
Ever the victim of my own refusal to close my mind and heart to any fucking thing, I can
still only conclude that I'm not
enjoying anything about listening to it.
Compare this to my opinion of crappy trance (http://youtu.be/1bVYgYW6410?t=1m29s) which actually creates a (possibly psychosomatic) adverse reaction in me.
I don't know why this is.
Quote from: navkat on August 10, 2011, 04:23:34 AM
Okay, Music For Airports I "get." Not my cuppa but it's ambient. It's soothing.
No, it is not. It creates terrorists. Perfectly normal, rational people go into the airport, crazed madmen get onto the plane.
There is a reason for this, and his name is John Meyer.
Quote from: navkat on August 10, 2011, 03:42:43 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on August 09, 2011, 03:24:23 PM
Quote from: navkat on August 06, 2011, 06:18:25 AM
I was born with a natural ear and (from what I've been told) perfect pitch (I used to hum the dishwasher, cars and refrigerator as a child)
Not that this adds anything to the discussion. Are you sure about the above?
Generally, absolute pitch implies some or all of the following abilities when done without reference to an external standard:[4]
Identify by name individual pitches (e.g. A, B, C♯) played on various instruments
Name the key of a given piece of tonal music just by listening (without reference to an external tone)
Identify and name all the tones of a given chord or other tonal mass
Accurately sing a given pitch without an external reference
Name the pitches of common everyday noises such as car horns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
My niece is an opera singer with Perfect (or Absolute pitch). Her choir director uses her voice as a reference to tune the rest of the choir. She can identify any note you play and can reproduce any note you ask her to sing.
Not that this has anything to do with aesthetics, definitions of art etc. But I thought I'd ask.
No, I am not sure about the above. As far as the correct definition goes, I can't name the note because I'm untrained. I've known for some time I have an ear that transcends that of those around me and for years, I believed this was just a quirky side effect of being smarter than those around me. I could never understand why people would hum the wrong notes or "forget" a song's melody in recall when the sounds were so clear in my own head...like aural photographic memory. I could "hone in" and hum the strangest mechanical noises and annoy the shit out of caretakers who would giggle at first and then scream "STOP THAT" after I began to switch to different "notes" in the harmonic sound of the refrigerator or leaf blower or whatev.
I have no formal training. I'm also not as good at vocally reproducing sounds as I once was simply because the equipment (larynx) is unpracticed and getting older. I can still hear if I'm off and I can hear what the note is supposed to be if I crack and miss it.
I have a note that's "my" note. It's the same every time. When I wake up in the morning, I will hum the same note as when I went to bed. I've tested this with a voice recorder.
I don't know what that means. I assume it's the raw materials needed for perfect pitch if only I'd been allowed to explore it in younger years.
Not perfect pitch. That has a fairly strict definition and it goes way beyond being able to carry a tune from memory.
And for what it's worth, the bolded part would be reason enough to turn most posters into troll chum. I mean, we know it's YOU and the seemingly naieve pretentiousness is part of your charm, but that's pushing it a bit, don't you think?
Quote from: navkat on August 10, 2011, 04:23:34 AMI guess I'm questioning my own open-mindedness: do I fail to understand/like Gantz Graf simply because I can't force it to fit into my own concept of what music is supposed to be? To find words to describe it? Is it that my mind requires labels and neat, little boxes for things?
Or is it truly because it isn't music? Or do I simply not like it?
Ever the victim of my own refusal to close my mind and heart to any fucking thing, I can still only conclude that I'm not enjoying anything about listening to it.
to answer your questions,
- it
is music
- you obviously do not like it
- apparently you can't fit it into a satisfactory box either
however, now you're conflating a few things in your post above. what, exactly, is your problem with said track? because first you wonder why you don't understand it, "get" it, and then you wonder why you can't seem to get yourself to like/enjoy it.
these are not the same things.
and apparently it
really bothers you that you can't seem to "get" it, while others do. and then you seriously wonder whether the others might be just pretending, cause they're "getting" something about music that you don't "get". take a good look at that behaviour, who is the pretentious one?
maybe this can solve it: I suppose you're smart enough to "get" it, if you really wanted to. but since you don't
like it, you're not going to listen to it with the attention and intuition required to do so. and then, maybe if you do "get" it, maybe you already did, you still don't
like what you hear so you're not sure at all whether what you think you just "got" is actually "it", because the track still doesn't bring you satisfaction. so there must be more to it, right?
or MAYBE you just don't like the track and should move on!!! hell there's a shitload of abstract noise glitch tracks that I don't like or "get", but my friends do. and also the other way around, some of them I absolutely love and they think it's just bzzzzzrttrtrtkkrzsch to them.
so yeah, isn't that funny? people like different things!
and then, sometimes the things they like tend to be a bit too far removed from the things you consider likeable, so you can't even imagine how somebody can like that! big deal?
what about sex? there's tons of sex-related things that people like that I can't imagine how they could like it, maybe some of them cause I haven't tried them properly, but others I have tried and I still don't really see the point and would prefer my sex without them. so are those things
really sex? or are those people perhaps pretentious douchebags that
pretend they like it, because obviously if I can't even possibly
imagine what could be sexually arousing about such a thing ...
damn I feel like I explained the exact same thing in at least three different ways now.
go ahead, ask it
ask one more fucking time BUT WHY DON'T I "GET"
GANTZ GRAF AND OTHER PEOPLE DO? BAAAAAWWWW!
Quote from: navkat on August 10, 2011, 04:23:34 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
Oh, Lord. Hipster Runoff. What a wanker.
Anyway, there isn't really much to "get" about the track, if you take the process of how it was created off the table.
- It lacks structure
- It lacks melody
- It lacks rhythm
- It uses various kinds of digital distortion
- The distortion leads to a lot of piercing high frequencies
So the end result is a track that is both completely unpredictable (which can challenge/please the brain) and also repeatable (by hitting play again). Which means you can get to a point where you're pretty sure what's coming next, but the amount of information being presented makes it difficult to predict with complete accuracy (which again, challenges/pleases the brain).
Have you heard any of Eno's Music For Airports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLh3WanSfg&feature=related)? It's similar to the Autechre track in that it is system oriented (various lengths of tape, looped so that they intersect each other at random intervals), and has no melody, rhythm, or structure. The main difference seems to be that the sounds are soothing rather than abrasive. Take a listen to the Eno track, and let me know what you think. We can probably narrow things down from there.
Okay, Music For Airports I "get." Not my cuppa but it's ambient. It's soothing. I have words to describe. I have niches to classify. It fits somewhere and can deal with it.
I guess I'm questioning my own open-mindedness: do I fail to understand/like Gantz Graf simply because I can't force it to fit into my own concept of what music is supposed to be? To find words to describe it? Is it that my mind requires labels and neat, little boxes for things?
Or is it truly because it isn't music? Or do I simply not like it?
Ever the victim of my own refusal to close my mind and heart to any fucking thing, I can still only conclude that I'm not enjoying anything about listening to it.
Compare this to my opinion of crappy trance (http://youtu.be/1bVYgYW6410?t=1m29s) which actually creates a (possibly psychosomatic) adverse reaction in me.
I don't know why this is.
Quick diagnostic: Does this track make you feel similar or different than the Autechre track?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSL7AngjjrE
I definitely find Autechre more pleasant to listen to. And I'm fairly sure I "got" more of Gantz Graf on the first listen than this, on the first listen.
Is there a structure to it?
I'd re-listen and try to find out, but it's giving my molar-fillings PTSD relapses.
However, I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Because they're from Berlin and that means they know their shit when it comes to beer.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 10, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
I definitely find Autechre more pleasant to listen to. And I'm fairly sure I "got" more of Gantz Graf on the first listen than this, on the first listen.
Is there a structure to it?
I'd re-listen and try to find out, but it's giving my molar-fillings PTSD relapses.
However, I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Because they're from Berlin and that means they know their shit when it comes to beer.
Trip, I'm really glad that SOMEBODY on this site has their priorities straight. :lulz:
Trip just keeps pwning the fuck out of this thread.
I think every generation just has to try harder and harder to make music that annoys the previous ones.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 10, 2011, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: navkat on August 10, 2011, 04:23:34 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 09, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
Oh, Lord. Hipster Runoff. What a wanker.
Anyway, there isn't really much to "get" about the track, if you take the process of how it was created off the table.
- It lacks structure
- It lacks melody
- It lacks rhythm
- It uses various kinds of digital distortion
- The distortion leads to a lot of piercing high frequencies
So the end result is a track that is both completely unpredictable (which can challenge/please the brain) and also repeatable (by hitting play again). Which means you can get to a point where you're pretty sure what's coming next, but the amount of information being presented makes it difficult to predict with complete accuracy (which again, challenges/pleases the brain).
Have you heard any of Eno's Music For Airports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLh3WanSfg&feature=related)? It's similar to the Autechre track in that it is system oriented (various lengths of tape, looped so that they intersect each other at random intervals), and has no melody, rhythm, or structure. The main difference seems to be that the sounds are soothing rather than abrasive. Take a listen to the Eno track, and let me know what you think. We can probably narrow things down from there.
Okay, Music For Airports I "get." Not my cuppa but it's ambient. It's soothing. I have words to describe. I have niches to classify. It fits somewhere and can deal with it.
I guess I'm questioning my own open-mindedness: do I fail to understand/like Gantz Graf simply because I can't force it to fit into my own concept of what music is supposed to be? To find words to describe it? Is it that my mind requires labels and neat, little boxes for things?
Or is it truly because it isn't music? Or do I simply not like it?
Ever the victim of my own refusal to close my mind and heart to any fucking thing, I can still only conclude that I'm not enjoying anything about listening to it.
Compare this to my opinion of crappy trance (http://youtu.be/1bVYgYW6410?t=1m29s) which actually creates a (possibly psychosomatic) adverse reaction in me.
I don't know why this is.
Quick diagnostic: Does this track make you feel similar or different than the Autechre track?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSL7AngjjrE
I think my ears are bleeding. :|
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 10, 2011, 06:03:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 10, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
I definitely find Autechre more pleasant to listen to. And I'm fairly sure I "got" more of Gantz Graf on the first listen than this, on the first listen.
Is there a structure to it?
I'd re-listen and try to find out, but it's giving my molar-fillings PTSD relapses.
However, I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Because they're from Berlin and that means they know their shit when it comes to beer.
Trip, I'm really glad that SOMEBODY on this site has their priorities straight. :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Oh fucking hell. I don't *like* it then.
Maybe I am the pretentious one. Does that make me pretentious? That I'm trying to comprehend what others adore about this music?
The sex thing? Not a valid metaphor. I can compehend why people would like rockin the violet wand even if I don't do so myself. I can "get" why some ladies like cock in the ass even if I, myself am not a fan of the pink sock. Hell, I love to suck cocks. Some of my fellow fems aren't so inclined.
LOLMNO is on the right motorcycle...even if he is poking me in the ear at the same time. So I listen to the eno track...and I've deduced that: "No, it's not the lack of structure. I "get" the track with no structure," but it's not the lack of harmonics either. I "get" dnb...even if it's not my bag.
Is it the lack of any? Possibly. But I don't find it particularly offensive, either. Trance I find offensive.
So what makes it music, then? Seriously. I ask with no pretense or irony. I wanna know. Why do YOU like it? What am I missing?
@ECH: I only dare say that here. I find many of you to be my equals or better, intellectually-speaking. I know, know, know that most of you not only relate, you've managed to find ways to tolerate/compensate for the "misfit smarty-pance" syndrome. The naivete, in this case, is no troll.
No worries, it was said with nothing but love. :lulz:
but I think you're still getting hung up here. The sex metaphor is perfectly valid. Just because YOU get or don't get it doesn't mean there isn't something to be got.
For example, I literally cannot for the life of me understand why ANYONE would find sounding to be a pleasurable activity. but enough people do that I'm also willing to accept that it's my hangup for not getting it, not theirs for getting it.
There's really no difference between that and you not getting the Autechre track, you just hate to not get anything so much that you're trying too hard. It really is OK to just not like it and/or just not get it.
Nav, if you got the same kind of response from the Neubauten track as you did from the Autechre track, but not with the Eno track, I might suggest that you have a bad reaction to arhythmic high pitched distortion. All that buzzing, piercing noise, not being tied down with a recognizable beat, or any kind of repeating figure might be what you object to.
If you want to use SCIENCE, you could try lifting the last minute of the Autechre track, and laying it over a dub beat to see what happens. If you find it more tolerable, then you've found your main sticking point.
QuoteSo what makes it music, then?
It's a series of intended noises created by the composer. No troll, that's how I have come to define music.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 11, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
Nav, if you got the same kind of response from the Neubauten track as you did from the Autechre track, but not with the Eno track, I might suggest that you have a bad reaction to arhythmic high pitched distortion. All that buzzing, piercing noise, not being tied down with a recognizable beat, or any kind of repeating figure might be what you object to.
If you want to use SCIENCE, you could try lifting the last minute of the Autechre track, and laying it over a dub beat to see what happens. If you find it more tolerable, then you've found your main sticking point.
QuoteSo what makes it music, then?
It's a series of intended noises created by the composer. No troll, that's how I have come to define music.
THIS!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 11, 2011, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 11, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
Nav, if you got the same kind of response from the Neubauten track as you did from the Autechre track, but not with the Eno track, I might suggest that you have a bad reaction to arhythmic high pitched distortion. All that buzzing, piercing noise, not being tied down with a recognizable beat, or any kind of repeating figure might be what you object to.
If you want to use SCIENCE, you could try lifting the last minute of the Autechre track, and laying it over a dub beat to see what happens. If you find it more tolerable, then you've found your main sticking point.
QuoteSo what makes it music, then?
It's a series of intended noises created by the composer. No troll, that's how I have come to define music.
THIS!
Okay, I can dig that definition.
As far as the Neubauten track is concerned, I'll have to give it more attention when I get home. I'm still in New Orleans ATM and have been using either my Android or my lappy on the Bienville House WiFi...which is DNS jacked and slow as fuckall.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 11, 2011, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 11, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
QuoteSo what makes it music, then?
It's a series of intended noises created by the composer. No troll, that's how I have come to define music.
THIS!
Sounds good to me. Quite broad, but it has to be.
Also, you just
know there'll be some musician that's going to record accidental "Found Music" to subvert the "intended" part of that definition, right? ;-)
It's clockwork, like a rule 34 for art.
Cage did that already with 4'33".
But I consider that to be more of a proof of concept, or a bit of philosophy, than a song.