Please recommend some so that I may understand this aesthetic more please.
From the electro-acoustic alternative pop / art music bin....
https://www.youtube.com/v/8g8LflASbBk
https://www.youtube.com/v/nabgy2bCuz0
Seems a bit too 'pop' to me.........perhaps there are people whose works incorporate this kind of thing but idk...less 'pop' and more 'experimental?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn8mxzDYdbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGAZDQROxA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5hhFMSAuf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTrh_QiMbd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGcPwGqPHO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hIgBEXuQD8
This is only stuff I know that has definitely been referred to as glitch... I don't really see the difference between some glitch and some onkyo and some other acousmatic things sometimes but I didn't go down any rabbit holes for tonight.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PDTxFrS8DFQ
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on March 19, 2017, 03:58:52 AM
[Drones in Large Cycles - Nico Muhly]
Beautiful. I didn't really expect to like something called 'glitch music'.
Practically any turntable music could be called "glitch."
Milan Knizak did a thing back in the sixties called broken music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88ONydyRX7c
Christian Marclay is also pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVyO9BaMvAQ
I had this album. I also saw him in concert in 1984. Changed my life.
And of course, the amazing Yasunau Tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDi-39o5qw
But that's as may be. When I think "glitch," I think of the master of every kind of equipment failure. Truly the best of the best, Francisco Meirino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcEeN9qAVmw
Enjoy!!
Thanks so much everyone! I particularly enjoy the Francisco Meirino posted by some guy. :)
Royji Ikeda : Dataplex (https://open.spotify.com/album/7rEvZJWAIyqFGy7X62kOq4)
(https://i.scdn.co/image/8308dcf8bba8e930ed35d2906bbb05424f642d7a)
Unfortunately it's not on YouTube. I highly recommend to listen to the whole album at once.
You misspelled kitsch.
(j/k)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 20, 2017, 04:39:40 AM
You misspelled kitsch.
(j/k)
Are you suggesting that we should have been recommending things like Golijov? :laugh:
Perish the thought! 8)
I immediately thought of a recent favourite, Mannequin shop by Zviij (https://zviij.bandcamp.com/album/mannequin-shop). Marclay and Ikeda is essential.
As for glitching applied to orchestral music, this is one of my favourite soundtracks but it's gonna be too 'pop' for you as well..
https://www.youtube.com/v/0TOtsjFg69g
Once again, the collective of members on GMG demonstrate, rather like the staff of expert specialists of The Antiques Roadshow(s), that it only takes one or several members to display their know-all -- and well inform -- in a relatively rare area.
In this thread on Glitch music, I'm talking about you, Nathan B and Some Guy :-)
I never paid much attention to labels or such limiting parameters, especially when haphazardly grafted to music. I never heard of this particular fad so I visited wiki ..QuoteGlitch is a genre of electronic music that emerged in the late 1990s. It has been described as a genre that adheres to an "aesthetic of failure," where the deliberate use of glitch-based audio media, and other sonic artifacts, is a central concern.
Sad how folks fall into such limiting & narrow trappings when creativity is concerned, or even take it seriously. And I don't see how this nonsense relates serious writing, music-making, let alone classical music. Perhaps it belongs in the Diner, like out back, where they put out the trash?
Quote from: James on March 21, 2017, 03:05:57 AMI never paid much attention to labels or such limiting parameters, especially when haphazardly grafted to music. I never heard of this particular fad so I visited wiki ..
Sad how folks fall into such limiting & narrow trappings when creativity is concerned, or even take it seriously.
Sad how old geezers fail to grasp the point and interest of new musical aesthetics.
That said
QuotePerhaps it belongs in the Diner
I thought we
were in the Diner.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 21, 2017, 06:26:15 AM
Sad how old geezers fail to grasp the point and interest of new musical aesthetics.
Boy, those are some "musical aesthetics" .. ::)
Talk about aiming low.
One of the myths that was perpetuated around the time that the term "classical music" was coined was the idea that, being more sophisticated and all, classical music required more concentration, more thought, more effort to listen to. And that all that activity was virtuous, somehow. And still, in symphony concerts, there are often pre-concert talks that explain how to listen to things that, given the audience, must surely be things that are quite familiar to it.
My take on it is that the more work the composer does, the less work the listener has to do. It's easy! Someone else has done all the work; you can just sit back and take it all in (or part of it in, maybe) and feel really sophisticated for being such a superior being as to like classical music.
Part of the idea in the fifties--and arguably some few decades before that, even--was that of re-apportioning responsibility more equally. Sure, the composer still has work to do; the performers still have work to do; but now the listeners have even more work to do than ever before. It's no longer about masterpieces and master performances--at least for some people--it's now more about art and beauty and what the listener/observer brings to the situation.
Simply put, there is more work for each listener to do with new music, especially work of the indeterminate and improvisatory kinds. You no longer have some god-like being presenting you with a finished masterpiece which, after a few minutes of pre-concert lecture, you are only expected to respond to with the appropriate religiosity. O altitudo!! You now are expected, or perhaps just invited (!), to participate. No longer a mere consumer, guided by wise music pundits, giving easy worship to pieces from the past that no longer have the power they once had to shock and bewilder and infuriate. Now a co-creator, an active participant in the situation, invested and responsible.
Hah! We all know how that one turned out. Rejected, soundly (pun intended), by one and all. Or almost all.
There are some of us who are content to like what we like without worrying about whether any mavens, self-proclaimed or otherwise, will be granting us the accolade of "good taste" to our aesthetic endeavors. El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto. And the guy who said that was still one of the old guard, busily churning out masterpiece after masterpiece. Still. True words. Or perhaps this, from a musician this time: "Down with masterpieces; up with art."
Amen.
And now, some Busratch for me. That seems appropriate.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 21, 2017, 06:26:15 AM
Sad how old geezers fail to grasp the point and interest of new musical aesthetics.
Tsk, Tsk! "All _____ are ____."
Yeah, right.
That out of the way, I think some (any generation) might just fail to realize how artists have always pushed the limits of the materials / tools they had at their disposal... including taking advantage of 'accidents,' etc.
The high and 'strained' sounding horn notes in a climactic moment in a Beethoven symphony
were absolute hell to nail and hold the intonation steady, even for a virtuoso (non-valve) hornist of the day. No contemporary valve-horn player can come close to getting that sound quality. Beethoven knew exactly what he was doing, and asking of the player, and the available technology / equipment and its behavior. "What artists do"
The electronic computer glitches happened due to the (by present comparison) extremely limited memory and processors in the early years of PC's and laptops. Running audio, the equipment would quite readily choke while playing but a minimum of data load, and that would make these glitches (artifacts.) Then, as in centuries before, the musicians made something of it vs. editing it out. "What artists do."
Earlier electronic music had the extremely temperamental synthesizers varying from day to day
when using exactly the same wave-forms, filters and settings. The composers worked with it, without it, and 'against' it when it offered something temporarily different than what they had been planning. "What artists do."
Too, I have an entirely empiric theory as to why the glitches seemed at all attractive to that generation who ran across them: they resonated on a somewhat sentimental level, very much recalling the glitches heard when playing back an LP vinyl disc that had small dings or a bit of dust in the grooves, the stylus hissing, 'glitching,' skipping, etc.
This all comes under a bracket of "What artists do," (routinely) back then and now. I don't see any radical gulf of difference of aesthetics here.
Best regards.
Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2017, 09:59:37 AM
One of the myths that was perpetuated around the time that the term "classical music" was coined [...]
But isn't perpetuation a process over time? It wouldn't yet have been perpetuated at the point of a term's coinage, right?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 22, 2017, 04:03:24 AM
But isn't perpetuation a process over time? It wouldn't yet have been perpetuated at the point of a term's coinage, right?
Yes. And although the myth had been forming before 1810, it began to be promoted and actively pushed around that time.
So yeah. Put "was perpetuated" down as me being lazy and sloppy.
But on to happier things. What artists do. Thanks M. Croche for that one. It's a point that cannot be emphasized too much.
Quote from: some guy on March 22, 2017, 06:29:39 AM
Yes. And although the myth had been forming before 1810, it began to be promoted and actively pushed around that time.
So yeah. Put "was perpetuated" down as me being lazy and sloppy.
Oh, my invitation to the clarity was in no way meant to impugn your verbal ethic, dear fellow 0:)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on March 21, 2017, 09:06:38 PM
Tsk, Tsk! "All _____ are ____."
Yeah, right.
That out of the way, I think some (any generation) might just fail to realize how artists have always pushed the limits of the materials / tools they had at their disposal... including taking advantage of 'accidents,' etc.
The high and 'strained' sounding horn notes in a climactic moment in a Beethoven symphony were absolute hell to nail and hold the intonation steady, even for a virtuoso (non-valve) hornist of the day. No contemporary valve-horn player can come close to getting that sound quality. Beethoven knew exactly what he was doing, and asking of the player, and the available technology / equipment and its behavior. "What artists do"
The electronic computer glitches happened due to the (by present comparison) extremely limited memory and processors in the early years of PC's and laptops. Running audio, the equipment would quite readily choke while playing but a minimum of data load, and that would make these glitches (artifacts.) Then, as in centuries before, the musicians made something of it vs. editing it out. "What artists do."
Earlier electronic music had the extremely temperamental synthesizers varying from day to day when using exactly the same wave-forms, filters and settings. The composers worked with it, without it, and 'against' it when it offered something temporarily different than what they had been planning. "What artists do."
Too, I have an entirely empiric theory as to why the glitches seemed at all attractive to that generation who ran across them: they resonated on a somewhat sentimental level, very much recalling the glitches heard when playing back an LP vinyl disc that had small dings or a bit of dust in the grooves, the stylus hissing, 'glitching,' skipping, etc.
This all comes under a bracket of "What artists do," (routinely) back then and now. I don't see any radical gulf of difference of aesthetics here.
Best regards.
+1
I fear there is a tendency among musicians to make things 'perfect' 'beautiful' and worst of all 'safe'..... imperfections are interesting but what's more interesting are when imperfections are used to their advantage and given a purpose.
Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2017, 09:59:37 AMMy take on it is that the more work the composer does, the less work the listener has to do.
::)
Untrue. I'd be curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. As most of the stuff you post is pretty skimpy/empty as a musical experience .. especially compared the guys who really put in the time.Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2017, 09:59:37 AMPart of the idea in the fifties--and arguably some few decades before that, even--was that of re-apportioning responsibility more equally. Sure, the composer still has work to do; the performers still have work to do; but now the listeners have even more work to do than ever before. It's no longer about masterpieces and master performances--at least for some people--it's now more about art and beauty and what the listener/observer brings to the situation.
::)
Untrue. And you contradict yourself in the last statement. Musicians & work often deemed 'masterly' reflect more about art and it's potential to create beauty than you seem to understand and it obviously engages those who come & partake.Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2017, 09:59:37 AMSimply put, there is more work for each listener to do with new music, especially work of the indeterminate and improvisatory kinds. [...] No longer a mere consumer, guided by wise music pundits, giving easy worship to pieces from the past that no longer have the power they once had to shock and bewilder and infuriate. Now a co-creator, an active participant in the situation, invested and responsible.
::)
Completely untrue and utterly condescending. So many false assumptions. Man your rhetoric is just so empty it's sad. You were obviously misguided by someone (I think I know who) to believe a lot of this - it's just words at the end of the day - not the reality. A case of garbage in, garbage out. And again, most of the stuff you post doesn't require much work, if any - it's pretty empty & invalid.Quote from: some guy on March 21, 2017, 09:59:37 AMThere are some of us who are content to like what we like without worrying about whether any mavens, self-proclaimed or otherwise, will be granting us the accolade of "good taste" to our aesthetic endeavors. El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto. And the guy who said that was still one of the old guard, busily churning out masterpiece after masterpiece. Still. True words. Or perhaps this, from a musician this time: "Down with masterpieces; up with art."
::)
Whatever you want to listen to, that's fine. You are what you eat at the end of the day. It's wise to learn from the best. And that last quote is trying to be clever, but it's just dumb imo.
Quote from: jessop on March 22, 2017, 01:53:16 PM.... imperfections are interesting but what's more interesting are when imperfections are used to their advantage and given a purpose.
Pop music is riddled with this sort of thing.
Quote from: jessop on March 22, 2017, 01:53:16 PM
imperfections are interesting but what's more interesting are when imperfections are used to their advantage and given a purpose.
Quote from: James on March 25, 2017, 09:56:25 AM
Pop music is riddled with this sort of thing.
OMG, you mean that once again, the pop music world has picked up and run with a ball already played in the classical music games? I'm shocked ;-)
Quote from: James on March 25, 2017, 09:56:25 AM
Pop music is riddled with this sort of thing.
I didn't mean it in that way. :P