|
futurism: passed? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| 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 |
|
|
| LionsLair |
| what exactly are they doin in that first vid? |
|
|
| Laeke |
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.
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 ^___^ |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by Laeke
|
Please, stay. |
|
|
| nefardec |
Laeke, thank you for your excellent contribution to this forum.
I want to respond to some of the things you wrote (as i listen to a 1989 set from derrick may at braintree :p)
Your distinction between futurism as a theme and as a technical process is important to the thread. A while ago I made a thread about obsolescence and stagnation in musical production technology and how it relates to the music. Also involved with that is the fetishizing of certain devices and sounds.
| quote: | | This is what I call (incorrectly) post-modernism. Art is currently talking a lot about art. |
Who really knows what post-modernism means :). I think this is definitely one of the components of post modern art, that is meta-art, artwork as criticism of other artwork. (Then again, this occurs throughout history) This is basically what the writer of that article was talking about when he wrote the term "blog house".
And just to be clear, I am using a broad definition of 'futurism' as foward-looking, with a distinct desire to leave the past behind and embrace contemporary and future technologies.
I don't think a futurist theme was limited to detroit techno, though certainly maybe in terms of its romantic and dystopic vision. I think there was a futuristic idea about partying and the culture itself that accompanied the rave/acid house scene as well. The detroit influenced scene of Berlin in the early 90s also I think you could say had a similar romantic outlook after the fall of the wall. There is a social experimentation as well as musical experimentation that becomes manifested in things like the Love Parade.
| quote: | | 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. |
Well to be fair, there are a lot of talented people out there (I'm thinking of the BT Ishkur describes in his critique), but the ones who take maximum advantages of the tools are those who are both creative and talented. I see creativity more or less as 'having the courage to create something without knowing exactly how it will turn out'.
So speaking of futurism in art (neo-futurism, whatever you want to call it), check this out:
Generator X
http://www.generatorx.no/
This is a website that collects information on artwork (visual, motion, sound) created from code.
http://www.dextro.org/
http://www.turux.at/
I will suggest again that responsive, intelligent, sentient, code controlled, generated music will be something we see in the future replacing deejays and redefining our nightlife and our every day life as well. |
|
|
| Laeke |
Nice links there, will take a deeper look at that a tad later.
My idea was not to limit futurism to Detroit Techno, although it is probably what I am the most versed in, and it is one of the genres -well Techno really- where "futurism" was the most prevalent (in its narrow definition), but all electronic music is (was?) to some extent futurist (in means of production and/or themes)
By talent I meant technical prowess and creativity, on that we agree.
Funnily enough, I started listening to EDM in 97 (with Carl Craig - More Songs...), just when the article starts its analysis. 97 to 99 was sure a big period for electronic music, with several major releases including the age d'or of "Big Beat" and "French Touch". I probably lack some perspective there, but in ten years I never went through a lack of new things to hear, but it's probably because I was busy going into the back catalog as well.
On meta-art/post-modernism, I don't know how much this affects the EDM scene. It has, indeed, become the most important cultural trend in the Western world (the "art of sampling", as Ishkur put it in this thread), thanks to "post-modernism" being (unfortunately) an excellent excuse to just re-hash everything for a cheap success.
(I guess that with theories like "the end of history", we had it coming...)
It is starting to get late and I don't think I could add much at this point. As someone put it, electronic music force lies into the absence of image, that is what sets it apart in today's musical landscape. For the best and the "worst". This is probably why it will never gonna hit mainstream approval (among other things), and maybe why it will (is?) becoming a niche genre that exhausted all of its possibilities. Look at "repetitive" classical music, it built most of its history on less than a dozen guys: is it very important in the musical history? Without a doubt. Will it live on after Glass & co pass away? Probably not on any significant level.
While i agree with your idea that samples and tracks will probably be more and more available over the net, i think it will never become a part of the collective conscience (apart from ours). In such a "catastrophe scenario", the legacy of electronic music will live on with "fusion" or pop artists or new movements.
(Serious and depressing, sorry about that).
Otherwise, I find the idea of machines making and playing music on their own pretty neat! |
|
|
| Kris G |
| This thread reminds me why I still come to this board, i salute you all :) |
|
|
| piku303 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
re: table thing
Yeah that's cool, I think we've all seen it by now...
but is that going to create a subculture that produces music, clothing, art, new building paradigms just because you can turn a cube around and make fancy patterns? |
watch the "table thing" video at the top of this page
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=3
imagine going in to a club to see a DJ. instead of playing vinyls or cds or whatever, its just him or her doing that? the DJ would be participating in a live performance, interacting with fans on the fly. think about DJ competitions were it was no longer about how well you could mix but how good of a song you can make up with a limited set of pieces specified by the competition rules. to make a remix you could obtain the same exact pieces used by the artist. a whole business would be made producing unique pieces to create sounds. it would be pretty sweet. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| some of you guys take music too seriously and need to lay off the yay a wee bit. |
|
|
| Laeke |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
some of you guys take music too seriously and need to lay off the yay a wee bit. |
Not denying it... I guess I wouldn't be a good "Detroit techno fan" if I was not a snob ^__^
But heh, some people do take sports seriously (myself included on some occasions), so I guess it can be OK to do it with music too, as long as you do not go left and right to patronize everybody. |
|
|
| piku303 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
some of you guys take music too seriously and need to lay off the yay a wee bit. |
yeah we're called producers. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
some of you guys take music too seriously and need to lay off the yay a wee bit. |
AMEN BROTHER |
|
|
|
|
