Tracks with subtly, you mean? Where some layers aren't heard until several listens?

___________________
When a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again: I would have none but knaves follow it, since a fool gives it.

Without having heard the new version of Movements I can't really understand what you're getting at.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Trying to apply perfect in describing music is only going to turn the topic into a semantic Vietnam. With the way you describe the experience, it seems like perfection doesn't really apply but is as close as you could get in describing a very complex topic with a single word. Your use of the word, perfect seems to mean an intrinsic simplicity which, however complex the music may have been, revealed itself possibly due to the meticulous way it was crafted.

Personally, I don't see this topic going very far without some refinement of the meaning in what you're asking. Perfection, alone, is difficult to qualify and when you torture the meaning of it, the thread may as well be a slap-chop for a word salad. It's not going to make ANY sense.







EDIT: Lack of caffeine and a tendency towards perfectionism.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

Last edited by EddieZilker on Aug-19-2010 at 17:32

Yeah, I dont think I explained it well. Probably some of you who will listen to both Movements will sense it too or maybe its just me. What I mean was that the original Movements (and some other albums too ofc) sound way too polished, straight-forward in terms of the idea behind the track and lack the pleasure of multi-listening experience (eg. rediscovering the track and, it, leading to some new dream/idea/inspiration whatever).

So I may reconfigure the question into: does the music always has to be perfected in its idea? Or does it has to have multiple paths? Personally I like the latter.

___________________
Ambient Mixes <- Latest Mix: Under the Light of Judaberg

Samothrace Mysteries - An Oldschool Series

Like it dark? Click this!

What do you think the idea behind Movements is?

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Loving "On A Wind"
"Black Arrow" even more so...
nice to see Solar Fields is having some success achieving perfection. Atleast through music it is capable.

Last edited by justin on Aug-19-2010 at 18:37

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Trying to apply perfect in describing music is only going to turn the topic into a semantic Vietnam.

I think Magadansky's using 'perfect' in the same way as 'perfect translation' applies to messages between languages. The idea is that a track can be fully understandable by the listener, in the sense that they can hear all the nuances and sonic happenings consciously. 'Perfect' doesn't mean a measure by some standard, but a way of structuring music. Like, let's say you listen to a car moving in front of you and it's basically completely clear; the farther you move away from it, the more indistinct it becomes, so that if you sit in some field on the outskirts of the city the sound of cars passing becomes one droning continuum rather than a discrete sound. The character of the sound changes completely in the two instances, but even still, if you push yourself to listen hard when sitting in the field, you can pick out some little details in that drone even though the total field is basically a blurred wash of sound.

I haven't listened to Second Movements but there was this thread a while back about Justin Bieber's song being stretched by 800% percent. Perfection is the difference between that track and something like Troum - Autopoiesis.

quote:

Originally posted by pozz I think Magadansky's using 'perfect' in the same way as 'perfect translation' applies to messages between languages. The idea is that a track can be fully understandable by the listener, in the sense that they can hear all the nuances and sonic happenings consciously. 'Perfect' doesn't mean a measure by some standard, but a way of structuring music. Like, let's say you listen to a car moving in front of you and it's basically completely clear; the farther you move away from it, the more indistinct it becomes, so that if you sit in some field on the outskirts of the city the sound of cars passing becomes one droning continuum rather than a discrete sound. The character of the sound changes completely in the two instances, but even still, if you push yourself to listen hard when sitting in the field, you can pick out some little details in that drone even though the total field is basically a blurred wash of sound. I haven't listened to Second Movements but there was this thread a while back about Justin Bieber's song being stretched by 800% percent. Perfection is the difference between that track and something like Troum - Autopoiesis.

Well put. If the OP was meaning to talk about space in the mix, this seems to be an adroit description. Perfect would be thus defined as a "clean" mix where every sound has a surgically precise space and there are relatively few, if any, clashing artifacts which, given a staid music arrangement, might tend to be a little dry.

A dirty mix, would tend to let instruments bleed onto one another to a point where sonic artifacts are created, thus adding new parts to the mix. As the spectral field became more noisy and dissonant I could hear that challenging a listener.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

Ambient music is not supposed to surprise you with each new listen or bring something new to table every time you hear it. As much as people try to redefine it and give it a new meaning, ambient is still best described with this Eno quote: “Ambient Music must be able to accomodate many levels of listening attention without enforcing one in particular; it must be as ignorable as it is interesting.”

I can't see how Movements is ignorable. It hits you right in the face with its big sounds and pretty melodies. Of course it's predictable, because it has no subtlety. Psybient label is very suitable in this case: it's ambient music for people who became tired of psy trance and want to take a little break. It's equivalent of Joris Voorn's take on Detroit techno. I want to believe that every true ambient lover avoids it (together with the rest of Ultimae catalogue), but surely that's not the case.

Ambient artists I like are Biosphere, Fennesz, Tim Hecker and Alva Noto. While their music doesn't offer anything revolutionary, it still has a certain offset from traditional forms of stale ambient - its minimalistic design and unorthodox sound manipulation that includes a lot of noise, acoustic guitars, glitches, errors, field recordings and everything in between still offers a certain novelty compared to that clean sound of Ultimae recordings.

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva It's equivalent of Joris Voorn's take on Detroit techno. I want to believe that every true ambient lover avoids it (together with the rest of Ultimae catalogue), but surely that's not the case.

This sounds like you're being very disparaging towards Solar Fields, Ultimae and Joris Voorn, and yet I recall you rating all three quite highly in your Albums Of The '00s list.

EDIT: Also, I've no idea why you're bringing ambient up, considering nobody has called Solar Fields ambient and I don't think anyone would.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Last edited by SYSTEM-J on Aug-19-2010 at 20:40

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva Ambient music is not supposed to surprise you with each new listen or bring something new to table every time you hear it.

quote:

Ambient artists I like are Biosphere.

Take a listen to Biosphere again. He uses more discrete layering in his music than I have ever heard anywhere else. All of his repeating phrases are composed of more layers than I can keep track of even now, after listening to his material steadily for the past 3-4 years. There have been times where I listen to specific tracks and albums continuously to try pick out certain patterns that I normally don't pay attention to or that slide out of my focus into different ones. Fennesz and Alva Noto are similar, also. Like, even in Alva Noto's really minimalistic work, where it sounds like one sound throughout the track, there is stuff going on that I have to struggle to pick up - little vibrations and wobbles.