|
futurism: passed? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
For an example of this, read my recent review of BT, by far the most clear-cut example of an artist who's completely ditched creativity in musicianship for relentless studio perfection and technological innovation. |
Nice porn analogies.
LOL. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
One must also be aware that futurism for futurism's sake is also a dead-end. Futurism isn't an end. It is a means. We shouldn't let the technology determine what kind of music we make, we should use the technology to make our music. For an example of this, read my recent review of BT, by far the most clear-cut example of an artist who's completely ditched creativity in musicianship for relentless studio perfection and technological innovation. |
quite an entertaining read, and a relatively easy target :p, but i don't really understand your concluding sentence, unless it was meant sarcastically
in the world of architecture as well a similar thing is happening with using technology as a substitute for creativity, (also in the art world. for instance):
Daniel Rozin - a BT of the art world
http://www.smoothware.com/danny/ |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
One must also be aware that futurism for futurism's sake is also a dead-end. Futurism isn't an end. It is a means. We shouldn't let the technology determine what kind of music we make, we should use the technology to make our music. |
That is so meaningless i'm actually struggling writing a reply to it. |
|
|
| bubbleguuum |
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 . 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... |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by bubbleguuum
most of them lack some music composition skills. |
Who's most of them? |
|
|
| Cobalt |
| 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. |
|
|
| bubbleguuum |
| 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... |
|
|
| SMC |
| 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? |
|
|
| SMC |
| 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. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| 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 ing 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 |
|
|
| SMC |
| 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 ing 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?
"ing 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. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| well that was effortless :wtf: |
|
|
|
|
