Can somebody explain why this is good?

bad2dabone

its true, music is about personal preference and taste. And we all have different opinions of course.
Personally though I think its fair enough to be able to call a spade a spade, when something lacks melody, harmony and rhythm is it music or just noise? I'm inclined to think its just noise.
I'm not against experimentation, far from it, but I think that there's a lot of pretentious-ness and bullsh1t around free-form music. Just my opinion of course, and if you like it then sure go for it. I've got a tape of a gorilla banging a bin lid off a lamp post that i'd like to sell you, while a baby cries in the background in J-sharp major.

darrenw5094

More of this. Baffles the life out of me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjV9dud_NY0

quicklickpaddy

Hahaha every thread involving something obscure in this forum always gets a good oul argument going between darrenw5094 and El Pron

Anyways... I'm ALL for experimentation with sounds - I do it more organically, just with stompboxes - but I get some wacky sounds none the less. Yes, of course music (and art as is the obvious parallel) is about personal preference and therefore subjective and because it's subjective it's going to be widely analysed and then praised or criticised.

On this count, I think most would criticise. I don't think he should practice more as Darren said but I do think he's made a bollocks of the balance between creativity and "musicality" (a whole argument could start from that word but I trust you all know what I mean as opposed to what it sounds like I mean).

You might have heard the story about a groundbreaking modern artist in America years ago. They held an exhibition hailing him as arts new big thing, loads of people turned up and loads of people bought his work for quite a lot of money. At the end of the exhibition they revealed that the artist was just a monkey throwing paint at a canvas. True story... I know that doesn't sound the most convincing but my girlfriend studies art in college and they were told about it in there, which I'd call a reliable source!

Anyways, just because those pieces were done by a monkey, doesn't mean the whole of modern art is discredited. The same applies here. In my opinion this lads a bit of a monkey and he's taken "splashes of paint on a canvas" a bit too far, but at the same time you've gotta respect what people are doing with music, especially when they're taking new steps into lesser trodden ground. Chances are they are trying to get a different output than you are, have the respect to take that into consideration before you start giving out.

Having said that I still think the above sounds shíte :P

Ostrom

Sounds like one of those sound effect keyrings I had when I were younger. Remember the ones with the coloured buttons for different effects?

Knifey Spoony

There are some interesting points made here and most of which I have been thinking about for a while, like when does the sound that comes out of your amp become less about what you actually play and more of a computer processed sound. For me it is kind of cheating having a sound that is so much manipulated by a computer, that it is the computer that is doing most of the work for you and what is the point of even playing the instrument in the first place?

I know that advancements in signal processing allowed the afformentioned Hendrix creat such a unquie sound. But still, all of his experimenting with sounds was still backed up by musical theory and it just seems that some of the clips here are just random notes and being played here and there. Just noises really that are enhanced by a computer program.

But that is what I think and each to their own I suppose, music being subjective and all... I just know that ain't the style for me.

rcaz

This thread has gone completely the wrong way... Comparing 40 seconds at the end of one Radiohead song to several entire Jimi Hendrix songs, and taking the guitar noises at the end of Go To Sleep to be the entire worth of Jonny Greenwood's guitar playing? There's no legs in that argument.

That video is a tiny section of one song, that effect isn't used by Jonny in any other song at all, it's a throwaway noisy bit, obviously not meant with any serious musical merit or significance or anything. Everyone's using this clip as a measure of what Jonny Greenwood is capable of, which is completely ridiculous.

That's like posting this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOzhbj1BVOU

and then saying "Jimi Hendrix is ****, look, he can't even play a note, he's just making noise, he should get his head out of his arse."

There are some interesting points made here and most of which I have been thinking about for a while, like when does the sound that comes out of your amp become less about what you actually play and more of a computer processed sound. For me it is kind of cheating having a sound that is so much manipulated by a computer, that it is the computer that is doing most of the work for you and what is the point of even playing the instrument in the first place?

I know that advancements in signal processing allowed the afformentioned Hendrix creat such a unquie sound. But still, all of his experimenting with sounds was still backed up by musical theory and it just seems that some of the clips here are just random notes and being played here and there. Just noises really that are enhanced by a computer program.

It's cheating to use a computer to manipulate sounds? Computers don't *do* anything other than what you tell them to do. This sound wouldn't be possible if Jonny didn't know how to work all the programs he was using, set up the hardware right, route all the settings correctly, etc. Computers don't do any work, they just evaluate sets of rules, rules which have to be put there by someone. Building the system to work right is as much a part of the music as putting his fingers on the strings.

So Hendrix rolling around on the floor with his guitar and mashing the vibrato up and down was backed up by musical theory? Of course it wasn't. He had a lot of musical theory behind him, of course. And Jonny Greenwood doesn't?

Rigsby

bad2dabone wrote: »

I've got a tape of a gorilla banging a bin lid off a lamp post

At least he is playing his own instrument, and being creative, which is more than can be said for a lot of recent bands... "Spice Girls", "Byzone" etc

Knifey Spoony

El Pr0n wrote: »

It's cheating to use a computer to manipulate sounds? Computers don't *do* anything other than what you tell them to do. This sound wouldn't be possible if Jonny didn't know how to work all the programs he was using, set up the hardware right, route all the settings correctly, etc. Computers don't do any work, they just evaluate sets of rules, rules which have to be put there by someone. Building the system to work right is as much a part of the music as putting his fingers on the strings.

So Hendrix rolling around on the floor with his guitar and mashing the vibrato up and down was backed up by musical theory? Of course it wasn't. He had a lot of musical theory behind him, of course. And Jonny Greenwood doesn't?

Well, what I was saying was meant to be about the general use of a computer to completley manipulate a guitar sound versus a few pedals and your instrument, rather than attacking what Peter Greenwood in general, even though I do relalise it does sort of come across that way. What I was trying to get across was: when does this use of computer manipulation go to far? That what you actually play doesn't matter because the computer is going to make it interesting.

I know you said that I does take skill to program and use the software, I don't doubt that, I know programming of any sort can be a right pain, nevermind trying to manuipulate sounds with it. But, is that taking the part of learning scales, chords how to use them to create something unquie and original with your instrument and a few pedals?

Rigsby

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

What I was trying to get across was: when does this use of computer manipulation go to far? That what you actually play doesn't matter because the computer is going to make it interesting.

I have got to agree with this. I think El PrOn and I discussed this in a previous thread. I am a big fan of free form/improvised music. The main attraction for me is it's spontaneity and sense of "in the moment". If I remember correctly, I think El PrOn said that it took a fair amount of time to "programme" his computer before going on stage. Herein lies the problem for me. To each his own, but I'm just making the point.


On the other side it could be argued that any instrument is going to make what you play interesting.... unless you are playing to someone like "bad2dabone" you collects tapes of gorillas banging bin lids off lamp posts.

bradlente

I don't see the big deal,it's only a few lead licks that sound a bit different.I'm a "million notes" fan myself but I can't see much wrong with him mixing it up a bit.If he played something "normal" in those parts I doubt it would garner the same attention,thats definitely a factor in why he does it.

rcaz

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

Well, what I was saying was meant to be about the general use of a computer to completley manipulate a guitar sound versus a few pedals and your instrument, rather than attacking what Peter Greenwood in general, even though I do relalise it does sort of come across that way. What I was trying to get across was: when does this use of computer manipulation go to far? That what you actually play doesn't matter because the computer is going to make it interesting.

I know you said that I does take skill to program and use the software, I don't doubt that, I know programming of any sort can be a right pain, nevermind trying to manuipulate sounds with it. But, is that taking the part of learning scales, chords how to use them to create something unquie and original with your instrument and a few pedals?

Well a pedal board is just a collection of small computers working together, you still have to take time to figure the system out and 'program' it, so to speak. Computers can be just as expressive, if not moreso, than any other instrument. I mean with a guitar, you can vary pitch and volume for 'expression', if you were working a computer as your instrument, you could vary an infinite number of parameters for 'expression'.

A computer doesn't just start off and do its own thing, especially something processing like in the clip in the OP. A computer can't do anything on its own, it can only react to the readings it takes from its inputs.

I still maintain way too much significance is being put on this bit of Jonny's playing. I could understand your argument a lot more if this was the main guitar part in the song or something.

MagicMarker

El Pr0n wrote: »

That video is a tiny section of one song, that effect isn't used by Jonny in any other song at all, it's a throwaway noisy bit, obviously not meant with any serious musical merit or significance or anything. Everyone's using this clip as a measure of what Jonny Greenwood is capable of, which is completely ridiculous.

That's like posting this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOzhbj1BVOU

The clip in the OP is shít, and the clip you've just posted is shít.

Now, moving on....

rcaz

MagicMarker wrote: »

The clip in the OP is shít, and the clip you've just posted is shít.

Now, moving on....

They're both great. They're both guitar players making some interesting noises that aren't very usual sounds to come from guitars. They're both examples of people making something interesting, not musically-valid or technically inspiring, but people making a new sound. Without guys doing stuff like this, music wouldn't exist the way it does today. If Hendrix didn't do what he did, he wouldn't have the reputation he has today. Jonny Greenwood is following in that approach to guitar playing, except unlike other people who follow that approach's lead, he's sounding like himself when he does it.

punchdrunk

love Johnny greenwood! there's no doubt the guy can play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8f5h4Zvxw

bad2dabone

punchdrunk wrote: »

there's no doubt the guy can play

Absolutely no doubt of his talent. I just think the Max/MSP patch stuff is bull****.

We're all still friends here

darrenw5094

I like the guy too.....he doesn't use the rules with scales etc. He always did his own thing, which gave Radiohead their own unique sound. But that original clip was tosh.

And Hendrix burning his guitar is not guitar playing to make sounds. That's Rock n'Roll.......that Jimi invented.:)

rcaz

darrenw5094 wrote: »

And Hendrix burning his guitar is not guitar playing to make sounds. That's Rock n'Roll.......that Jimi invented.:)

What about grinding it up against the amp?

darrenw5094

El Pr0n wrote: »

What about grinding it up against the amp?

Rock and Roll man.:cool:

rcaz

darrenw5094 wrote: »

Rock and Roll man.:cool:

Oh right. Brilliant!

darrenw5094

El Pr0n wrote: »

Oh right. Brilliant!

You are getting the Rock and Roll thing now El Pr0n.:)

rcaz

darrenw5094 wrote: »

You are getting the Rock and Roll thing now El Pr0n.:)

Yeah, I am. It seems to be full of double standards, nostalgia and distrust of anything relatively new. Am I on the right track?

darrenw5094

El Pr0n wrote: »

Yeah, I am. It seems to be full of double standards, nostalgia and distrust of anything relatively new. Am I on the right track?

That's it. Although, if laptops were around back in the 60's, Jimi would have burned one of those too.

rcaz

Oh, I forgot to mention hypocrisy.

Ravelleman

darrenw5094 wrote: »

That's it. Although, if laptops were around back in the 60's, Jimi would have burned one of those too.

Personally, I'd take Kraftwerk over Hendrix any day of the week.

quicklickpaddy

El Pr0n wrote: »

I still maintain way too much significance is being put on this bit of Jonny's playing. I could understand your argument a lot more if this was the main guitar part in the song or something.

In fairness the thread is about that clip but if we're not talking about just that then I agree with most of what your saying.

Experimenting with sound is clearly a good thing! I just think it has to work in the context of a listenable song for it to be validated. Take The Mars Volta for example. Omar Rodriguez uses batch shit crazy effects but they work in context. In this clip it's sonic masturbation... The weird, creepy kind.

Miklos

This is the most pointless argument.. it's always the same! Nobody learns anything new.

I can't remember how many times this kind of argument has come up on this forum.

darrenw5094

A poll to see if a new sub catagory of computer music should exist.
It would save a lot of arguements on here with this sort of thing.:)

Ravelleman

This is one of the more ludicrous threads I've seen here recently.

Back to the 'Instruments' of old!

ultra55ound

Ah cmon it was just a bit of banter, got a bit bored on Friday evening. Don't think anyones taking this too seriously are they? If you are you need a good chat with yourself.

Rigsby

ultra55ound wrote: »

Don't think anyones taking this too seriously are they?

I hope not. I certainly am not. It is/was an interesting thread IMO. There were valid points made from both sides. It is when we get into "X music is great, Y music is rubbish" territory, that things start going down hill. Music is music ( yes, even the "noise" type ). If you like a certain music, great, if you don't, there is plenty of choice out there. IMO the broader your taste the more rewarding it is.