Can somebody explain why this is good?

fruvai · 07-02-2011 01:43PM

Can somebody explain why guitarists are so conservative?

darrenw5094 · 07-02-2011 01:43PM

Rigsby wrote: »

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.

I think the arguement was really if Greenwood's playing was creating many of the sounds that we heard, wether we liked it or not. The laptop/software seems to be doing 99% of the work.

rcaz · 07-02-2011 02:16PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I think the arguement was really if Greenwood's playing was creating many of the sounds that we heard, wether we liked it or not. The laptop/software seems to be doing 99% of the work.

I don't mean to be arrogant here, but going by the rest of the argument (and this might sound like a horrendously patronising assumption, but I think there's a reasonable basis to go with it), you probably don't know 99% of the work that goes into setting up the soft and hardware to get those sounds. His laptop wouldn't be able to do any work at all if he didn't understand everything inside out. His playing was creating 100% of the sounds we heard, his laptop was just chopping some of them up and repeating them.

darrenw5094 wrote: »

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.:)

That would be like saying computers aren't musical instruments.

Rigsby · 07-02-2011 02:33PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I think the arguement was really if Greenwood's playing was creating many of the sounds that we heard, wether we liked it or not. The laptop/software seems to be doing 99% of the work.

I dont understand this.

Unless an acoustic guitar is being played, then any electric guitar is making many of the sounds produced. For instance the wah wah is not produced by the player but by the pedal. Granted, Greenwood is bringing it a step further, but the basic point remains.

darrenw5094 · 07-02-2011 03:18PM

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont understand this. Unless an acoustic guitar is being played, then any electric guitar is making many of the sounds produced. For instance the wah wah is not produced by the player but by the pedal. Granted, Greenwood is bringing it a step further, but the basic point remains.

People play with no effects, with some transparent effects or maybe layered with tonnes of saturated distortion. Their fingers are still doing alot of the work, but that Greenwood solo is different completely.

But El Pr0n, when did computers become musical intruments?;)

MilanPan!c · 07-02-2011 03:23PM

At it's most basic music is structured sound and silence.

Nothing more.

Now, I like lots of weird ****, but didn't like that clip. It just didn't move me.

But that's just my taste.

I do believe that not all art is objectively equal, but again, that's just my opinion.

rcaz · 07-02-2011 03:35PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

People play with no effects, with some transparent effects or maybe layered with tonnes of saturated distortion. Their fingers are still doing alot of the work, but that Greenwood solo is different completely.

If his fingers weren't doing any work, there wouldn't be any sound there to process. His fingers are doing exactly the right amount and kind of work to get the sounds he wanted.

darrenw5094 wrote: »

But El Pr0n, when did computers become musical intruments?;)

When they first made sound? Around 1951 or so.

MilanPan!c · 07-02-2011 03:40PM

El Pr0n wrote: »

If his fingers weren't doing any work, there wouldn't be any sound there to process. His fingers are doing exactly the right amount and kind of work to get the sounds he wanted.

When they first made sound?

So much awesome music is made with sequencing and sampling. No moving fingers required.

darrenw5094 · 07-02-2011 03:57PM

El Pr0n wrote: »

If his fingers weren't doing any work, there wouldn't be any sound there to process. His fingers are doing exactly the right amount and kind of work to get the sounds he wanted.

When they first made sound? Around 1951 or so.

I just realised that i have 2 more musical intruments than i thought. HP laptop and Samsung laptop. The 'Start' button is the best feature on mine.....just sit back and relax, listen to the music.:rolleyes:

rcaz · 07-02-2011 04:18PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I just realised that i have 2 more musical intruments than i thought. HP laptop and Samsung laptop. The 'Start' button is the best feature on mine.....just sit back and relax, listen to the music.:rolleyes:

I don't get why you're being so sarcastic and cynical about this. A computer can make any pitch, at any volume, any combination of pitches, play things completely evenly and preciesly, or with any degree of randomness you could want, play things (sequenced or with generative programming) that would be impossible for a human to play on an instrument that didn't use sequencing. Of course, a computer instrument can be played with anything you could possibly imagine with a bit of configuration (keyboards, guitars, microphones, touch sensors, cameras, video game controllers, anything), or any combination of anything all at once. A computer can, theoretically, produce any possible sound imaginable, including exact reproductions of any sounds you've ever heard.

There are NO limitations on the timbre, practicality, application or expressiveness of a computer as a musical instrument.

Rigsby · 07-02-2011 05:06PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

when did computers become musical intruments?;)

I always assumed that anything that produced a musical sound was a musical instrument. Some instruments require more physical work or movement to produce music. The didgerido requires virtually no movement of any part of the body, yet is considered a musical instrument, albiet primative. I'm finding it hard to figure out your line of reasoning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC9w4KWEgJE

Seziertisch · 07-02-2011 06:31PM

I dunno, I just think that people are placing way too much emphasis on that short clip of Johnny Greenwood.

It wasn't like he did a whole gig of just that, it was the last half a minute or so of one track.

Its a bit like criticising or praising someone excessively for hitting the last chord in a song and then walking up to their amp to start it feeding back. Though Neil Young did do a whole album of just that pretty much, as did Lou Reed come to think of it. And both of those records are pretty cool. Is there a market for a whole album of Max/MSP improv? I don't know, maybe there is.

Ravelleman · 07-02-2011 07:06PM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I just realised that i have 2 more musical intruments than i thought. HP laptop and Samsung laptop. The 'Start' button is the best feature on mine.....just sit back and relax, listen to the music.:rolleyes:

Music and computer programming aren't that far from one another really. They're both equally a product of Enlightenment. Western music is totally rationalised, just like the mathematical sequences that allow computers to operate. All of it is basically down to scientific analysis and planning, on various different levels. I'm sure that computer programmers could talk to you about a certain aesthetic elegance in their field of work just the same as a musician could. It happens in mathematics, for example.

The instrument being played is unimportant. Ultimately it's the creative process and the person behind the sound that's most interesting.

Even if , as you say, the computer or the machine or whatever is doing 99% of the work or even 100% of the work there's still an inherent beauty in that, perhaps paradoxically.

Personally, I think the idea of writing something that's more or less entirely synthetic is really interesting. Take writing a love song without any organic instruments or with vocoded vocals for example. Once you take away all the organic instruments, the song is still just as equally about love. It's just presented in a different manner to the one you're used to.

You should check out some Kraftwerk or any of the stuff that followed. 1980s electro is my favourite. It's actually quite thought provoking, while being almost totally synthesised. That's what all music should do.

MadsL · 08-02-2011 12:02AM

I kinda thought it was a cool effect but then thought, if you are going to do loops then reference Steve Reich...and if you are going to do noise then reference Sonic Youth. This doesn't really hit either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sX4jqylYDU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-V0Iwml3c

punchdrunk · 08-02-2011 12:06AM

El Pron is my kinda dude...he get's it!

and thanks to Seziertisch & rigsby for bringin da Logic (pun intended

)

darrenw5094 · 08-02-2011 01:41AM

punchdrunk wrote: »

El Pron is my kinda dude...he get's it!

and thanks to Seziertisch & rigsby for bringin da Logic (pun intended )

Looks I am old school......I am not getting it at all.

El Pr0n, i didn't mean to be sarcastic about the computer thing.

Rigsby · 08-02-2011 10:53AM

darrenw5094 wrote: »

Looks I am old school......I am not getting it at all.

I wont see 50 again, so I regard myself as old school.

I guess the reason I "get it" is because I have been listening to general free form music ( as well as lots of other types ), since my early 20's.

I always compare this type of music to one of those hologram type pictures. You know the type, with all the lines and squiggles ? At first glance, it looks like a complete senseless mish mash. Then when your eyes finally adjust and focus, a picture emerges. Some people only look once and dismiss it, while others take a glance now and then, 'till finally, they see the "picture".

rcaz · 21-03-2011 12:15AM

Sorry for dragging up an oldish thread but I've been doing a little 'research', if you will...
This sorta weird processed playing is around much longer than I thought, found a load of these videos of Henry Kaiser explaining what he's into. I think they're pretty cool, but going by the comments on the videos, a lot of people hate them :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76nU5Ghq5Wo

I knew guys like Derek Bailey have been making weird sounds for yonks but I didn't realise weird playing caught on as soon as the technology allowed it... How come it's still so notable when someone pulls out a 'stutter' effect now? :pac:

seachto7 · 21-03-2011 01:34AM

a mate of mine got a free ticket to see Dream Theater once in Manchester so he went along. He would have been into them years ago...

The crowd was full of people doing air guitar, air drums, air keyboard, air bass, basically playing along to the riffs, getting hard ons over 7 fret stretches...

Pathetic stuff. He left half ways through the gig..... I learned a fair share of lead guitar back in the day, and I hate people who frown on musicians just because they can't jack off on lead guitar. Playing a guitar solo is THE most obvious thing you can do in a song. Jonny Greenwood, while not shredding, has come up with some of the most original riffs, embelishments, etc of the last 20 years hands down.

Some of his progressions on OK Computer are gold, as are some of his sounds. I like the way in the OP, he basically used a guitar to f**k around with sounds. Yeah, a full song of that would be grating, but it was just the end....

Ravelleman · 21-03-2011 03:18AM

El Pr0n wrote: »

Henry Kaiser

Zomg, he has teh god-like Dumble toanz.

rcaz · 21-03-2011 11:22AM

Ravelleman wrote: »

Zomg, he has teh god-like Dumble toanz.

Hahaha, that's a matter for another thread. I'll be on the 'wtf this is stupid' side of that one though :pac:

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4 · 21-03-2011 08:06PM

El Pr0n wrote: »

You're thinking too much like someone who plays the guitar, and not enough like someone who makes music. Why does 'practicing' have to be about improving technique?

practicing and writing are very different though. Practicing is all about improving technique! I hate practicing, love writing!

Paolo_M · 21-03-2011 08:14PM

Ravelleman wrote: »

Zomg, he has teh god-like Dumble toanz.

He's got teh crystal lettuce alright!!!

Frusciante · 22-03-2011 01:35AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOqEHtdODOw&feature=player_embedded#at=519

To be fair, Greenwood has some daycent enough solos here, showing that he can actually play guitar well, but at the same time, the minor pentatonic, standard, straight up soloing has been done to death already (speaking as a musician who plays in blues/rock/country bands), its cool to see someone doing something to push the boundaries, what Jimi Hendrix did was experimental in his time, who knows, instead of DS1s, in 30 years we'll all have laptops with max/msp patches......

Although i still think the original vid sounds like a child punching a guitar :-)

Orando Broom · 22-03-2011 01:16PM

ultra55ound wrote: »

I'm not trying to be funny here or anything, if anything I'm frightened that I'm turning into my Dad when he described Sonic Youth as 'just noise'. That was pretty much exactly what I thought when I heard this.

What's going on here, and why do people like this so much?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyKCwDJ7ZUc

Someone of note somewhere said Radiohead, post OK Computer were important. People are now afraid to say contrary because it might seem like they lack knowledge. Radiohead have been in terminal decline since OK Computer. Radiohead could release an album of farm sounds ran through a processor of some stripe and it would become the album of the year. Radiohead are so ****ing far off the reservation it's not funny but no one will actually call them out as the bluffers they have become for fear of having their skinny jeans and vintage sunglasses taken off them.

That is not good. It is garbage. It is indulgent, egotistical noodling given credence by some industry concocted spiel about breaking boundaries of music. It is a shame they were a brilliant band who were capable of so much more.

rcaz · 22-03-2011 01:33PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

Someone of note somewhere said Radiohead, post OK Computer were important. People are now afraid to say contrary because it might seem like they lack knowledge. Radiohead have been in terminal decline since OK Computer. Radiohead could release an album of farm sounds ran through a processor of some stripe and it would become the album of the year. Radiohead are so ****ing far off the reservation it's not funny but no one will actually call them out as the bluffers they have become for fear of having their skinny jeans and vintage sunglasses taken off them.

That is not good. It is garbage. It is indulgent, egotistical noodling given credence by some industry concocted spiel about breaking boundaries of music. It is a shame they were a brilliant band who were capable of so much more.

Let me guess, you want 'more guitars'?

Did you read the thread at all? All your points were already brought up and argued out, about a month ago.

They do what they like, and they do it well. You mightn't like it, but lots of other people seem to.

rcaz · 22-03-2011 01:39PM

And I await the "You're just a Radiohead fanboy you'd listen to anything Jonny Greenwood sneezes on" argument. That's the thing that I don't get about the "Everything after OKC is up their own holes" arguments, when a Radiohead fan who puts a lot of thought into their music, and so probably has a bit more to say than the guy starting the argument, chimes in, they get scoffed at for.... Having an opinion based on... more than ignorant generalisations?

reniwren · 22-03-2011 02:23PM

I see the original post as a bad example of greater picture but one things for sure the rest of the guys hold it together for any amount of wacky sounds he wants to throw at it.

Can somebody explain why this is good?

Comments