TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- BT, as seen by Ishkur
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Ishkur is the Maddox of EDM.

Fusion of Maddox and Pitchfork Media applied to EDM.

mark me down as another who completely agrees with the article.

the only problem i had is im left with the mental image that the author is someone who watches a lot of porn.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur I had a point to make, and I made it.

Unfortunately you're no where near as imaginative a writer as Cusik.

i thought that cusik article was a mess & not the slightest bit enjoyable to read. i gave up after this paragraph:

quote:

His music tries so hard to be correct at times it renders itself uninteresting. This music does not writhe or howl or twitch, it is not hung-over, either giving into or recovering from an addiction, an obsession or a perversion. He's a musical Puritan, a Christian cop. The music suffers no readily apparent lacerations, diseases or infections. The music is sterile. It is not trapped in neurotic sexual frenzy. It chases nothing because it is disconnected from real desire and pathos. I wonder if BT were actually able to successfully incorporate moments of profound silence on this album what would they resonate with? Pithiness probably. But never an echoed taste of De Sade's pathos or mania. Well, this isn't really fair. He did the best he could...sadly. I'd prefer to hear an album of what HE believes to be his worst music, not what I believe to be his worst. Things that perhaps he deletes in the middle of the night out of shame, uncertainty or fear. Paranoid riffs. Can a riff be paranoid? I guess not. A riff is a type of certainty, usually overstated male bravado and little else. Paranoia is a form of fearful ignorance. Still there must be musical passages that have leapt from his subconscious without analysis' musical paradoxes, something' anything. Confusing things, etc. If he ever had the courage to pursue those emotions to their end, he might actually produce something of interest. Instead this music has bought into the clich' of its own imagined genius.

by then he was just throwing miscellaneous (& occasionally nonsensical) sentences down without any kind of flow or direction. like a bad dj set.

i can't say i fully agree with ishkur, but his was a far more entertaining read

quote:

Originally posted by stev�sto the only problem i had is im left with the mental image that the author is someone who watches a lot of porn.

yep.

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra by then he was just throwing miscellaneous (& occasionally nonsensical) sentences down without any kind of flow or direction. like a bad dj set.

Or an over-produced BT track?

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee Or an over-produced BT track?

heh. maybe that was his aim?

quote:

Originally posted by plaxx Ishkur should never be taken seriously... BT is a musical genius. He's tries out things no one would ever dare to because they'd rather stick to what everyone else is doing. The technical process BT goes through is truly astounding and unique. ... The problem with the scene today are the Luddites who refuse to move forward, who refuse the embrace change but would rather bring up the epic 90's and Oakenfold's EM tour.

You completely missed the point. BT isn't forward-thinking in sound, he is forward-thinking in technique. Just as you said, but still misinterpreting what Ishkur's article was about. We're not supposed to be "astounded" and admire the "uniqueness" of production techniques. If you do that you're no longer judging music.

P.S. Somebody PLEASE tell me how writing source code for music could EVER make it sound better than classically written music? Why would you even bother trying that except to prove some dumb point? Bottom line: Mathematical formulas aren't aesthetically pleasing.

quote:

Originally posted by distant You completely missed the point. BT isn't forward-thinking in sound

I would say he certainly is to some extent. But that's irrelevant, music doesn't have to be forward-thinking to be appreciated.

quote:

he is forward-thinking in technique. Just as you said, but still misinterpreting what Ishkur's article was about. We're not supposed to be "astounded" and admire the "uniqueness" of production techniques. If you do that you're no longer judging music.

If there's anyone who's obsessed with the production techniques it's people like you. If you're aim is to judge the music you should be able to pretend you don't know anything about his production techniques or who he is. Then you could simply say you don't like his music, but that's not satisfiying, is it? You gotta convince everybody else there's something wrong it, and with BT you have all the perfect things to whine about. And seriously, why shouldn't someone be allowed to admire an artist for his technique (especially since you bash the artist because of it)? You tell others to judge the music while you rant about everything else that isn't the music. That's hypocritical to say the least.

quote:

P.S. Somebody PLEASE tell me how writing source code for music could EVER make it sound better than classically written music? Why would you even bother trying that except to prove some dumb point? Bottom line: Mathematical formulas aren't aesthetically pleasing.

Has anyone actually said it makes it sound better? BT probably thought of it as a fun thing to try, an experiment, he did it and then he told people about it. What's the problem?
You don't like the track? That's fine, really.
You have a problem with BT using Csound? No one could care less.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Unfortunately you're no where near as imaginative a writer as Cusik.

Well, most writers recognize that there is a trade-off, of sacrificing imaginative, sophomoric, freeform expositional thought exercises for coherency.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC If there's anyone who's obsessed with the production techniques it's people like you. If you're aim is to judge the music you should be able to pretend you don't know anything about his production techniques or who he is. Then you could simply say you don't like his music, but that's not satisfiying, is it? You gotta convince everybody else there's something wrong it, and with BT you have all the perfect things to whine about. And seriously, why shouldn't someone be allowed to admire an artist for his technique (especially since you bash the artist because of it)? You tell others to judge the music while you rant about everything else that isn't the music. That's hypocritical to say the least.

1st: TBU was marketed as math music. If BT thought nobody should care, then the details about its execution wouldn't even be known. So I'd say he's quite obsessed with over-production.

2nd: I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by "artist". Do you use it as a synonym for musician? If so, we're right back to judging the wrong person for the wrong things. If not, and it means something in addition to (in this case) musician, then I guess it's fine to judge him by his technique, as long as you don't let that taint your opinion of the music itself (which is often the case, I've noticed. It's a bit of a halo effect).

3rd: I am judging the music. I think it sucks, but then I go a bit further: I add "here's why" and go into why his pretentiousness/geekiness inhibits his artistic side (if he possesses one). That's just me, I like finding reasons why things are the way I perceive. By the way, if I were judging his programming and production skills, I'd say he's excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by distant 1st: TBU was marketed as math music. If BT thought nobody should care, then the details about its execution wouldn't even be known. So I'd say he's quite obsessed with over-production.

I don't know about "math music". But what BT has been talking about is all there. It's not like he lied and said there are multiple overlapping time signatures and whatnot and there isn't. It's all there. And apparently people find it interesting. I find it interesting, the interviews with BT etc, it's not that often a music lover can get a little bit of "behind the scenes".

And what part of TBU exactly constitutes "over-production"?

quote:

2nd: I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by "artist". Do you use it as a synonym for musician? If so, we're right back to judging the wrong person for the wrong things. If not, and it means something in addition to (in this case) musician, then I guess it's fine to judge him by his technique, as long as you don't let that taint your opinion of the music itself (which is often the case, I've noticed. It's a bit of a halo effect).

An artist is a person who creates art, in this case music.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Well, most writers recognize that there is a trade-off, of sacrificing imaginative, sophomoric, freeform expositional thought exercises for coherency.

Its funny how well Cusik's point ties right into this. You can have the skills but if you dont have the creativity, they are pretty much useless...

Ferry Corsten, anthem of the year? Are you kidding me?

Has this guy even heard the "Bring the Noise" remix yet?

Ishkur's work (including edmguide) is completely biased; it's non-sense. He has nothing other to do other than showing us his inability to describe why he don't like some musical advents. He's so poor, he always blames it on others. It is always because of music and its author... He likes to generalize, and mostly he likes to generalize the stuff he likes and he does...

On the other hand, many people like to talk about music on general level, as it was something that does not depend on one's musical experience. That's quite non-sense, and it does not lead anywhere. Waste of time.

At the end, some are obsessed with technical point of view in order to help people make much better music (whatever that means), while others are obsessed with ability/inability to describe WHY they like or don't like some musical advents, or in other words - obsessed with judging the music and its authors. Review geek?

quote:

Originally posted by movingincircles Ferry Corsten, anthem of the year? Are you kidding me? Has this guy even heard the "Bring the Noise" remix yet?

It didn't require much to know that he was speaking about his "classic" remixes... Gouryella tracks, Universal Nation remix, Madagascar remix, Force of Gravity bootleg, Synaesthesia, Barber's Adagio for Strings, etc...

Even though his sound right now is shitty, the man still managed to bring up massive club hits back in the days...

i <3 bt

I am thoroughly convinced that this thread is born out of two things: sasha & digweed fans intimidated by someone with real talent and people who have never actually listened to BT.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/BT

Maybe this will refresh the memory of those who keep throwing around this 'lack of creativity' nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by sean5 I am thoroughly convinced that this thread is born out of two things: sasha & digweed fans intimidated by someone with real talent and people who have never actually listened to BT. http://www.discogs.com/artist/BT Maybe this will refresh the memory of those who keep throwing around this 'lack of creativity' nonsense.

Sasha & Digweed are better than BT in every sense of ever, discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Well, most writers recognize that there is a trade-off, of sacrificing imaginative, sophomoric, freeform expositional thought exercises for coherency.

Be quiet.

quote:

Originally posted by distant 1st: TBU was marketed as math music. If BT thought nobody should care, then the details about its execution wouldn't even be known. So I'd say he's quite obsessed with over-production.

Bullshit. The details of execution are always known in BT's albums. Somnambulist from Emotional Technology is in the Guiness Book of Records for its amount of vocal edits, but if you're going to tell me that Emotional Technology was an album marketed as maths music you're a fucking idiot.

quote:

I am judging the music. I think it sucks, but then I go a bit further: I add "here's why" and go into why his pretentiousness/geekiness inhibits his artistic side (if he possesses one). That's just me, I like finding reasons why things are the way I perceive.

BT's production skills are simply an easy stick to beat him with. As far as I'm concerned you're using it as a tool to lend weight to a purely subjective opinion. Since "creativity" or "artistry" are completely ambiguous, unmeasurable qualities, there's nothing to say what effect BT's production has on "his artistic side". The production techniques on TBU are hardly noticable: without reading an article on the album, I'd love for you to show me which bits are circuit bending, or composed in the Golden Ratio or written in code. It is the first BT album in a long time where the production doesn't sound detrimentally noticable. Therefore it's irrelevant to judging the record musically. And quite frankly, what it comes down to is whether you like it or not. If a melody or a rhythm or whatever doesn't work for you, it doesn't. There's absolutely no argument to say that This Binary Universe lacks artistry or creativity in any definable sense: all you can do is attach an arbitrary "artistic" value to a melody to try and make your opinion of it sound objective.

quote:

Originally posted by sean5 I am thoroughly convinced that this thread is born out of two things: sasha & digweed fans intimidated by someone with real talent and people who have never actually listened to BT. http://www.discogs.com/artist/BT Maybe this will refresh the memory of those who keep throwing around this 'lack of creativity' nonsense.

What does Sasha and Digweed have to do with anything?

BT has classical training. That does not equal talent. Not surprisingly, the music I like most, and is arguably more creative, is made by people with zero knowledge of music theory.

quote:

Originally posted by sean5 I am thoroughly convinced that this thread is born out of two things: sasha & digweed fans intimidated by someone with real talent and people who have never actually listened to BT.

You really haven't a clue, have you?

First, this thread is about BT's as a producer, and looking back, I don't see a single post comparing his productions to either Sasha or Digweeds.

Second, if you had ever seen BT perform live (which I feel fairly certain you haven't), there's no way in hell you would ever make the claim that he has anywhere near the talent of Sasha or Digweed, even when those two are at their absolute worse.

Without getting too far into that discussion, all I'll say is that BT's
"live" show is without doubt one of the worst things I have ever seen in my entire life.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J BT's production skills are simply an easy stick to beat him with. As far as I'm concerned you're using it as a tool to lend weight to a purely subjective opinion.

Sure thing. But I'm basing this on very real observations. I don't think anyone is this thread has denied that putting too much energy into production inhibits creativity. Anyone who's ever tried to produce a track knows that they're two completely different mindsets.

who's high pitch....oh...i mean...who's ishkur?!!

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