i'm kinda curious about this...

i don't mean stuff like Morton Subotnick, Stockhausen, Xenakis, or Pierre Henry, but more recent stuff like Seefeel and Autechre. (not "car commercial techno" but also not Merzbow either. it may have beats but the intention isn't necessarily to make people dance.)

does that sorta stuff sound like shit to you in the same way the Jesus Lizard may very well sound like shit to Aphex Twin?

If we may generalize as to "that sorta stuff," I can say that I have yet to be impressed by any of it. It all has its roots in club culture, even if it tries to subvert it somewhat, and I find that culture and that music repellant.

Turns out, he's written about this on another thread.

Edit: oh, well then. Never mind. But you can still check out the other thread for an interesting distinction between kinds of electronic music.

I think it might help if the term "electronic music" was a little bit more well defined. There are many artists that fall into this category who do so simply because their music is created "electronically".

A few examples of this are:

Fennesz who started out playing in an "experimental rock band" and is still a guitar player. His music is washes of ambient guitar and synth with no evident similarities with what can be found in "club culture" other than the use of a laptop.

Max Richter who studied piano and composition in Edinburgh and then under Berio. He also played in a modern classical group before entering the world of electronic music. His music is basically classical with little bits of the "odd noises" thrown in.

Stephan Mathieu on the other hand can really only be linked to the genre in the sense that he makes "mixes". These are often comprised of using other people's performances (almost always classical instrumentalists) and creating songs by combining their performances. He does all of his "mixing" live and often adds himself playing drums to them.

These are just three examples of "oddities" found within the "electronic" genre.

They are also three who are worth a listen.

steve wrote:If we may generalize as to "that sorta stuff," I can say that I have yet to be impressed by any of it.

okay, let's talk specifics... does Seefeel appeal to you? their music is incredibly rich texturally -- not unlike MBV, which i assume you appreciate. i think they were top-notch.

steve wrote:It all has its roots in club culture, even if it tries to subvert it somewhat, and I find that culture and that music repellant.

are you a blues fan? couldn't most rock music be said to have been rooted in the blues? moreover, isn't it the case that a lot of the things we like are rooted in traditions we don't entirely care for (or even sometimes hate)? what i'm getting at is that i don't think it's any sort of concession to club culture to like music that may never have existed without it -- just like it's not a concession to chuck berry to like the sex pistols, even if the latter ultimately failed to truly subvert rock 'n' roll.

i can understand if you simply don't like the sound of a drum machine or a granulated synth. but the way these elements are utilized, in my opinion, that's what the music is about, not its sociological context or genre affiliations (which, often times, are nothing more than a spring board anyway). but perhaps i'm being too vague.

dragon man wrote:I think it might help if the term 'electronic music' was a little bit more well defined.

true. but only because there's such a wide array of music that's passed through the channels of club culture/laptop composition/etc..

Eksvplot wrote:i can understand if you simply don't like the sound of a drum machine

ever heard a band called "big black?"

shagboy wrote:

Eksvplot wrote:i can understand if you simply don't like the sound of a drum machine

ever heard a band called "big black?"

this is what happens when people don't do their homework.

personally, i really like a lot of electronic music (including some stuff that "has its roots in club culture"). i'm a bit of a dilatante, i'll admit, simply because i haven't put in the effort to really differentiate between different things that are out there, but i like a lot of what i hear. i also really like Big Black. but i will say that i like the two for very, very different reasons.

first off, i would like to decry the connection between Big Black and so-called "industrial" music, specifically bands that are more dance-oriented, like Nine Inch Nails. each camp represents a completely different aesthetic: on the NIN side, you have a general theme of self-indulgence, whereas on the Big Black side, there is definite evidence of an attempt to lash out. the difference is that one is passive, the other is aggressive.

so i suppose i could see how someone wouldn't like that passive, self-indulgent aesthetic (which, even though i used the example of NIN, also applies to a lot of electronic music). even if they sound similar (which they don't, but a lot of people think they do), the philosophy behind the music is enough of a driving force that one might choose not to care for that type of music.

of course, there's the whole argument of other genres that are just as self-indulgent--that mark prindle interview comes to mind where Steve mentioned that he rather liked Burzum. i happen to like black metal as well, but i don't think Steve is being hypocritical in this case, simply because black metal is a different kind of music, with a wholly different sound.

so what it boils down to is: do you like the philosophy? and do you like the sound? you need to think about both these elements and decide which outweighs the other to really determine your opinion of a certain type of music.

also, there's another thing that this thread reminds me of that pisses me off, but i'm starting another thread for that.

shagboy wrote:

Eksvplot wrote:i can understand if you simply don't like the sound of a drum machine

ever heard a band called "big black?"

yes, of course. i'm well aware of this mysterious "Roland" character who never seemed to attend photo shoots.

i used the experession "drum machine" rather than tb-303 as an example because the latter is inextricably intertwined with a specific style like acid whereas the former (or soemthing like it -- cardoors slamming?) is a basic building block of most left-field electronic music --- though not all of it, obviously. my point was that i can understand someone's not liking the sound of a drum machine (or general synthesis) as a basis for disliking electronic music, but i can't see how an open-minded person would dismiss a huge field of sonic and aesthetic exploration simply because of its relatedness to a style of music that it's, arguably, only loosely connected to. my point isn't to put dude on the spot, but to encourage debate. i'm interested in knowing what people think, and why. if someone doesn't like something that i like, that's fine.

instant_zen wrote:
this is what happens when people don't do their homework.

there's a band wagon on the horizon with the word "reproach" on the side of it. better hop on, huh?

only teasing.

also...

instant_zen wrote:there's another thing that this thread reminds me of that pisses me off, but i'm starting another thread for that.

i'll speak only for myself here: everything i've mentioned, every "name" i've "dropped" (look out down there!), is, in the scheme of things, fairly well known. if you happened to mention guided by voices, hawkwind, or robert wyatt on a breakcore message board, i personally wouldn't accuse you of obscuratanism. if anything, i think i may have been too general and unspecific.


done here.

lots of electronic music comes from the club culture, but another big part comes actually from the hip-hop culture (see autechre), mixed with experimentation and modern composers. neat stuff.

Eksvplot wrote:i used the experession "drum machine" rather than tb-303 as an example because the latter is inextricably intertwined with a specific style like acid...

It's a good thing you weren't being specific because the TB303 was the bass synth that went along with the TR606 which was the drum machine.