TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- futurism: passed?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Nice debate but I don't care about futurism at all.

I just want artists to make quality music instead of some easy random bubblegum shit. This won't happen as most of them lack some music composition skills. If the future consist of being flooded with subpar music then it's not nice (it has already begun).

Still about futurism, classical music was invented centuries ago and it's still played and it's still good. That won't be true for the vast majority of what's being produced today...

quote:

Originally posted by bubbleguuum most of them lack some music composition skills.

Who's most of them?

quote:

Originally posted by SMC That is so meaningless i'm actually struggling writing a reply to it.

He's saying that futurism can't be the guiding creative force, at least not by itself. If you merely obsess over technology in art, then all you get is a mess of technological fetishism, not anything of creative value.

Detroit techno expressed futurism both in production technology and in the ideas that guided its use. The two supported each other, but it wasn't technology alone that made the genre; it was a certain attitude toward that technology.

Today, I'm not sure we can muster that sort of attitude. Electronics have become so integrated with our everyday life that there's nothing particularly alien about them anymore. The absence of that motive isn't going to be filled by any degree of production geekery; it has to be found in other sources. The original article suggests that futurism has been displaced in electronic music, and may never be coming back, since the era of unfamiliar electronics has passed into history, and even become a point of nostalgia.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Who's most of them?

I'm specifically thinking to most producers of so called minimal. I know it's fad and won't last forever hopefully. But most tracks in that genre
don't stand as single songs, as they most of the time go nowhere. Maybe they are useful as DJ tools, but as complete works it's very unsatisfying.
I took minimal as an example but it also apply to other genres. I like tracks to have some great structure, a proper beginning, middle and end and to bring me somewhere. Most of what's produced don't as either the producer didn't care and wanted to do a quick job (think of the flood of crappy remixes whose point still escape me), or simply do not has the skill to make more interesting music.
Hopefully some producers are also musicians, and it shows in their music. Let's take for example Carl Craig, Moodymann, St Germain, Osunlade, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by bubbleguuum I'm specifically thinking to most producers of so called minimal. I know it's fad and won't last forever hopefully. But most tracks in that genre don't stand as single songs, as they most of the time go nowhere. Maybe they are useful as DJ tools, but as complete works it's very unsatisfying. I took minimal as an example but it also apply to other genres. I like tracks to have some great structure, a proper beginning, middle and end and to bring me somewhere. Most of what's produced don't as either the producer didn't care and wanted to do a quick job (think of the flood of crappy remixes whose point still escape me), or simply do not has the skill to make more interesting music. Hopefully some producers are also musicians, and it shows in their music. Let's take for example Carl Craig, Moodymann, St Germain, Osunlade, etc...

Ok, then we're on the same page. I agree there is an insane amount of ridiculously insubstantial (non-)music being put out. But it's just an observation rather than i complaint, because i don't really listen to any of it, why would i?

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt He's saying that futurism can't be the guiding creative force, at least not by itself. If you merely obsess over technology in art, then all you get is a mess of technological fetishism, not anything of creative value. Detroit techno expressed futurism both in production technology and in the ideas that guided its use. The two supported each other, but it wasn't technology alone that made the genre; it was a certain attitude toward that technology. Today, I'm not sure we can muster that sort of attitude. Electronics have become so integrated with our everyday life that there's nothing particularly alien about them anymore. The absence of that motive isn't going to be filled by any degree of production geekery; it has to be found in other sources. The original article suggests that futurism has been displaced in electronic music, and may never be coming back, since the era of unfamiliar electronics has passed into history, and even become a point of nostalgia.

I said what he wrote was meaningless not that i didn't understand the meaning. And that's particularly in response to "We shouldn't let the technology determine what kind of music we make, we should use the technology to make our music.". The only way technology (or instruments in general) determine anything is by setting the limits for what the products of their use may sound like, instruments have certain limitations. If we can't allow that then we should quit making music right away. Hell, what point is there in picking up a guitar, it's just gonna sound like a guitar, right? No, of course not.

And also one should be careful when using words like "futurism" that have no obvious significance and refer to abstract concepts. I for example have never thought of futurism as "obsessing over technology" and you write that like that's what it means.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC The only way technology (or instruments in general) determine anything is by setting the limits for what the products of their use may sound like

if you read up on how some of the tracks on 'this binary universe' were made i think it's clear to see how he means. most of the tracks were spawned purely through fucking about with different kinds of abstract technology, just to see if it could somehow be output as sound. for the end product i think it's fair to say bt had a technological vision rather than a musical one.. his creativity came from technoligical exploits, rather than him pushing techological limits to achieve his creative vision

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra if you read up on how some of the tracks on 'this binary universe' were made i think it's clear to see how he means. most of the tracks were spawned purely through fucking about with different kinds of abstract technology, just to see if it could somehow be output as sound. for the end product i think it's fair to say bt had a technological vision rather than a musical one.. his creativity came from technoligical exploits, rather than him pushing techological limits to achieve his creative vision

Why do you talk to me like i don't anything about This Binary Universe?

"fucking about with different kinds of abstract technology" is certainly one of the elements on TBU, but to say "most of the tracks were spawned purely through" that is clearly an exaggeration. It's not like the album is a collection of noises or random amusical stuff, on the contrary it's musically accomplished and at times quite complex, but most of all it's also very listenable, imo at least.

And to sit and talk about the artists vision is just pointless, i don't know if his vision was technological or musical or if he was on drugs and i'm not sure i care that much either. The result is certainly musical, and that's what matters most to me. And seriously, wtf do you know that i don't to sit here and talk about his vision and where his creativity comes from, what are you, his shrink? Please.

well that was effortless

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra well that was effortless

Meaning?

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Meaning?

lol, i was just trying to clarify his opinion for you, not somehow undermine your knowledge of BT or start an argument

quote:

Originally posted by SMC "fucking about with different kinds of abstract technology" is certainly one of the elements on TBU, but to say "most of the tracks were spawned purely through" that is clearly an exaggeration. It's not like the album is a collection of noises or random amusical stuff, on the contrary it's musically accomplished and at times quite complex, but most of all it's also very listenable, imo at least.

I agree with you completely. I was trying to argue with Ishkur on his forum about BT, but in the process I somehow managed to break his forum. However, your point is bang on: while BT certainly obsesses over the technical side (sometimes at the expense of the wider picture), it is an easy stick to beat him with and often exaggerated wildly to put him down. The transition from an intermittent flaw in his work to the defining characteristic of his music is a big one.

This Binary Universe is a fantastic album, and to dismiss it as high-tech wankery is to deny yourself enjoying a great piece of music entirely through prejudice and preconception.

*hides his pink bunny costume

What it seems to me is that the "attitude" changed from scifi in the 90's to fantasy in the 00's. It's a bit of a clumsy analogy I guess, but even the most forward thinking among us picked their own pet moments from the past and got all romantic about them. The attitude now seems a bit more conservative and against change, there looks to be a lot of people who just want to go back to the way things were, in music and beyond. I look back at what I went through, starting in 2002 or so, and it was fun, there are not really any regrets about it even if it was all recycled pieces of fantasy. The future in the 90's seemed more hopeful and exciting, I think when we imagine the future now, it seems scary. Today the visions of the future make us fantasize and clip together these fun little collages of everything we liked about the past, hoping that it will make us all feel a little better.

I will admit, in a dark room in washington about 3 years and 11 months ago, I did have a look around the room during "as the rush comes", and I did get that feeling like everything was gonna be OK. That is just my attempt to be empathic and semi on-topic, that our attitude has changed from scifi to fantasy, most us who are into one are into the other luckily. I'm alright with letting the dead army march into the city and eating fairy fruit for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra lol, i was just trying to clarify his opinion for you, not somehow undermine your knowledge of BT or start an argument

It's alright.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I agree with you completely. I was trying to argue with Ishkur on his forum about BT, but in the process I somehow managed to break his forum. However, your point is bang on: while BT certainly obsesses over the technical side (sometimes at the expense of the wider picture), it is an easy stick to beat him with and often exaggerated wildly to put him down. The transition from an intermittent flaw in his work to the defining characteristic of his music is a big one. This Binary Universe is a fantastic album, and to dismiss it as high-tech wankery is to deny yourself enjoying a great piece of music entirely through prejudice and preconception.

I'm with you a 100%. About Ishkur: it's really beyond me how anyone who pretends to know anything about music can call TBU "the most abstract of music production". That's just ridiculous. Further he mocks BT's enthusiasm for the technical aspects of music creation while completely ignoring the music itself.

fu�tur�ism /ˈfyutʃəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fyoo-chuh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun

(often initial capital letter) a style of art, literature, music, etc., and a theory of art and life in which violence, power, speed, mechanization or machines, and hostility to the past or to traditional forms of expression were advocated or portrayed.











fu�tur�ism (fyōō'chə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A belief that the meaning of life and one's personal fulfillment lie in the future and not in the present or past.
2. An artistic movement originating in Italy around 1910 whose aim was to express the energetic, dynamic, and violent quality of contemporary life, especially as embodied in the motion and force of modern machinery.

quote:

Originally posted by ToxicGreenWaste fu�tur�ism /ˈfyutʃəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fyoo-chuh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation �noun (often initial capital letter) a style of art, literature, music, etc., and a theory of art and life in which violence, power, speed, mechanization or machines, and hostility to the past or to traditional forms of expression were advocated or portrayed. fu�tur�ism (fyōō'chə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. 1. A belief that the meaning of life and one's personal fulfillment lie in the future and not in the present or past. 2. An artistic movement originating in Italy around 1910 whose aim was to express the energetic, dynamic, and violent quality of contemporary life, especially as embodied in the motion and force of modern machinery.

hahaha

this should've been posted right at the start.

yeah we all know about the art movement called futurism. I am an art/architecture student and have done a good deal of research on Giacomo Balla, Marinetti and the futurist manifesto, Antonio Sant'Elia, etc

i know what Futurism with a capital F is.

your first definition is very narrow and concerns this movement


futurism as a word also applies to a sort of philosophy of making art which is hinted at in the first definition in the second part. it is about making things for the future and not for the past, about disconnecting from the past and trusting in progressive technology.

obviously futurism meant things like railroads and automobiles in the past, but we can use this term today to refer to a modern futurism. or maybe you would rather I use a stupid phrase like "neo-futurist"




nice job copying the dictionary.


i bet you learned how to make babies while reading the "s" section too

I think that everything is great.

quote:

Originally posted by excite331 I think that everything is great.

Just wait until they find the incurable cancer brewing within you.

Gotta stop smoking now!

Has society in general changed much in the past 10 years? Ever since leading up to the turn of the century the past 10 years of popular culture seems to want to go back to the 80s and more recently patching into the 90s, in the early part of the decade popular culture was hyped on the 70s. It seems as though we have hit a glass cieling in general as far as populare culture goes, which reflects on art and the evolution of art, and one of the most popular art forms Music. Maybe people are happy with the level that life has reached as far as futurism is concerned, maybe we are at a place in the future and going any further will be too unnatural and too futuristic. We have computers, cell phones, ipods, we are always connected to the latest and greatest through the internet.

Maybe computers and technology arent inspiring society to push a culture around computers. We came we saw we...arent hyped. Computers and technology are soulesss, they have no fabric no texture no feeling. Why are kids growing up in the 21st century gravitating towards the 80s the 70s, when a future full of amazing technology is available? Are we ever going to embrace cyber punk or a blade runner world?

quote:

Perhaps come the year 2017, electronic music...I'm betting Carl Craig will still be on top of the charts.

A major flaw with that article is that Philip Sherburne seems to ignore that Electronic music can have relevance for much longer than any other form of music. There is no real major image used to sell the music like there is for American Pop music or Rap music or Country Music. The images used to sell other forms of music age the sound instead of help keep it endlessly relevant. If you watch a video of 70s funk and you look at the style and hear the sounds you can easily tell its dated music (i love 70s funk btw). People listen to Electronic music predominantly for the music, and not the image associated with it. Electronic sound has almost an infinte shelf life, a track that is 10 years old doesnt have the age of a 10 yr old track because there was no image associated with it unless a rare occassion that a video is made for it.

So does Electronic sound really need to evolve or keep pushing towards the future when it is aging much slower than any other form? Sine waves, Saw waves, Triangle Waves and Square waves are what this music are made around, infinintely relevant Math and Logic. Whenever these logical and mathematical means to sounds become daft, that is when Electronic music might have to start taking a new form with new instruments and new technologies to achieve sound to meet the new needs of the Electronic music genre listeners. So does this futurism ever have to be realised or will it ever? Either way as a Electronic music producer I welcome the future in sound when and if it needs to arrive.

.

quote:

Originally posted by sonix the future is now

that is not really conceptually different than anything in the past 100 years

they just have some fancy instruments

what exactly are they doin in that first vid?

Hello all, I'm a new member there and I signed up just to respond to this very interesting thread. English not my mother tongue, so please excuse the weird sentences or words.

Just to make the introduction complete: I'm more of a tech-head (Detroit, yeah I'm one of those!), and my knowledge of electronic music probably don't measure to the guy who wrote the article or some of you there.

I feel the OP and the article speaks of a lot of things, all interesting: sure they mash in a cohesive whole but you can break down things a bit and on some points I do not agree with many people there.

To start off with

quote:

If you don't get what I mean by that exactly, basically there is a difference between making something about something and just making something.

Yeah I think I get what you mean. This is what I call (incorrectly) post-modernism. Art is currently talking a lot about art. I'm kind of a movie buff, so I guess a valid comparison could be Tarantino's works. And I wonder if in the end it is really something constructive or meaningful: sure there are some very talented people out there who can manage to both make art about art yet not lose the focus on the primary goal (to tell a story, to make booty-shaking music in our case, etc...) but there's also a lot of hacks, which borrow the apparence of quality in great past works to cover up their non-talent. And even coming from the talented people, you still get the impression it feeds a narcissic, nostalgic and vain trend.
The movie industry is especially guilty of this, right now, by trying to adapt or remake (generally batardizing in the process) every videogame or decent 70's movie out there.
I do not have the slightest idea of how we can go out of that lull.

quote:

futurism: passed?

I will speak of the vividness of the theme itself there, which was not exactly what the OP was raising, but I think it is also discussed, so here my two long cents on that...

One would say that electronic music and sounds (because if you want to be really broad, a lot of the music today is partly electronic, via the use of Pro Tools or whatever, that's really the "sounds" which define the music as such) has lost its edge. Once more, I can partly agree to that, the public has been exposed to electronic music, then again one would say that the novelty kind of wear off very soon (as soon as New Wave when pop bands started using synths en masse) for the masses.

However, even though some electronic artists knew great success (Chemical Brothers, to name one) I would that an important part of "EDM" is still mostly unknown to the general public. It has been, for a large part, been "pop-ified" to some extent. The artists that gained large public or critic (beyond the usual scope of electronic music) success being -I believe- mostly tied to pop (Moby, Madonna, Eurodance in its day, etc...) or "jazzy"/lounge/downtempo [and Hip Hop, but that doesn't count there, I don't think that most people think of it as electronic, except for something like Dizzee Rascal]. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you.

What I am trying to say is that the "repetitive" electronic music is still very much unknown*. And its themes as well, because I don't think the above examples -bar some of them- really conveys that much of a futuristic feel to them.

For that matter, futurism is not the end-all theme of electronic music. House music, which is as old as techno, does not rely on it on a major basis, or am I mistaken? I always felt House loved a lot the idea of a community coming and merging together under the groove -which could be tied to cyberpunk and such, collective conscience, etc- but in a spiritual kind of way more than through a totalitarian technology -not sure this is very clear there, sorry-

I don't think "futurism" is a thing of the past. The term was coined by Italians in the early 20th century, much before "computers" actually became "conceptualized" (putting out the very early ancestors of Pascal and such there). Futurism (or could we say science fiction?) has evolved since then, and while computer technology now surrounds us, I am not sure people are so familiar with the possible advance in technology that may wait at the turn. AIs, cyberization, deep space exploration, all those are still viable and rich SF themes. And every turn opens new doors and ways to explore.
It did not went obsolete (like movies of the 30, 40 or 50es depicting moon missions) and we are probably only at the beginning of the marriage between man and machine.
As for the dystopian, technology ridden world that Kraftwerk or Atkins's beats transmit to your cell brains, it still looks quite plausible (even more than 20 years ago).

I could elaborate a long time on that, but I think what I wrote is long enough already.

And then again, as a Detroit techno fan, I aknowledge I may be partial to that (I listened too much of it already!).

* And even though sites like Beatport made our lifes much easier, there are still a lot of old stuff which is just hard to find, even with eBay, on amazon or p2p, or so it seems to me.

quote:

the major problem with electronic music, which the article begins to touch on, is that the technology isn't really opening any doors for musical experimentation and production. The technology these days is all about performance, spectacle, video, superlatives, etc. In terms of creating music, there's not a whole lot out there that's much different. Now the other problem here is that our computers have become so easy to control that we can craft whatever we want and have it come out the way we expect. All efforts are focused on the sound of sound rather than the production of sound, and I am guilty of this myself with making music.

I think the article really focus on the globalization of it all, which is still far from complete IMHO (yet is a undeniable trend). But to be honest, who excepts people like us do debate of etiquettes between minimal tech-trance or acid-hardcore-house?
Sure, with Internet and globalization, we will probably lose a bit on the "domestic"/local style... But it will not annihilate it. And maybe we shouldn't be too conservative on that, after all we are not raising grapes for wine that depending on where it is grown will acquire a specific taste (what we French calls the "terroir").
While the local scene/context (The Detroit context in the 80's, the Belgium one, the UK one, etc...) is of some importance, I think that the fate of a "techno monoculture" is not inevitable with globalization. It will depends on both the artists and how they can retain their specificities, and on the public. Really, I think that a massive public success on the mainstream public would probably do a lot more to bring a monoculture (which is bad, pointing the obvious there) that the fact artists (and us listeners) now have the possibility to discover new things much more conveniently -a wonderful possibility, all in all-

But the point you raise there is also very interesting, it's not really futurism as a theme but also as a way of producing the music. While I don't think electronic music lost its "edge" on the general public (simply because they are unaware of it), you're concerned about the lack of meaningful artistic advances even though it became much easier to create and broadcast electronic music. At least we can sleep safely on one point: there will always be a difference between talented people and untalented ones, the first taking maximum advantages of the tools. Even though we might have reached the end of electronic music as we know it (which is open up for debate, but I am way too ignorant of the details to write on that), this does not mean nothing interesting will ever come out of it. After all classical music is still composed to this day and there were some major composers in the 20th century.

I think one cannot predict major advancements in "musicology": maybe through computers will arise a completely different kind of music that is so different of what we know and accept that we can't grasp it yet. Or maybe through the existing tools new genres will be born. It will take some great artists to do that and even though musical history is a continuum, major changes do plop quite fast: once it happens it will be very easy to trace back the roots of it, much like it now common knowledge that House, Trance or Techno was a children of such or such previous type of music. But the vast majority of us will not foresee it, plain and simple.

So to end this much too long (and my apologies if all that sounded pompous) post, I would say that futurism is perfectly fine as a theme, and there's nothing wrong in using it even as a nod or an homage to those great past and current artists, as long as your production is not driven by the sole purpose of a mere rehashment "post modernist".

Thanks to all who managed to read all of that ^___^

quote:

Originally posted by Laeke

Please, stay.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.