If find that stuff to be pretty lame. I learned early in art history class, so many of these ideas about others people werk is bullshit.
They completely miss the point. I remember my teacher talking about a piece I did…telling me why she thought I did it the way I did. Then asked me if she was on the right line of thinking. I said…’yes’. Cuz I don’t think she would have liked my answer. Which was, I didn’t have time, and it’s the only way I knew how to get it done in time. A lot less romantic.
Night of the Living Dead: so many analysts talk about why Romero put the black guy in the lead roll. It’s political statement etc etc. He knew the guy, they were friends. That was it.
Maybe Ae just do like they do and it sounds good. My bet is that’s it. And that would be the paper I submit.
Ae: the why and how
Cuz they like it like that
Adding: I was just thinking…perhaps they write a paper on that cuz they have nothing else that holds their interest and it’s a way to stay engaged in the project you have to deliver.
I hear you. A favourite of mine from my time as a Creative Writing Major:
Back on topic. I’m not defending academic analysis of Autechre. All I’m saying is that I (as a massive fan who would read practically anything to do with S&R) found the paper not too bad in terms of opinions, insight, ideas, electronic music history, and as a way to spark my own creativity.
I will defend the acadmic analysis! It’s just another way to learn more about their music which might be educational or it might be inspiring. I’m not saying it’s for everyone but I’m all more the merrier when it comes to opportunities to learn.
I mean, a quick glance through the Mesker paper and it has information on how some rhythms are written, or on how generative parts are composed, or how certain sounds are synthesised. The end result is the same as reading a forum post about to programme beats, or a youtube tutorials on conditional locks. Add in some historical context and it seems to be a treasure trove, albeit one you need to put some effort into.
Aha. You get it. It’s my before-bed read for the next week, me thinks. Any new Autechre info is appreciated. Even if the newness is in the context or way of thinking about their music
I’m glad I sparked a bit of controversy
Academic analyses can be corny as hell when the artists in question just go by intuition or taste, but fortunately for fans and listeners there’s the potential of gleaning something valuable from both approaches.
(Or so I tell myself.)
So, what does an artist think like? I just don’t think that the artistic process for Autechre would be the same as for Bruce Springsteen. I mean, it might be. But I would wager that there are whole range of artistic approaches, just as there will be a whole range of critical approaches, just as there are a whole range of academic approaches.
I don’t doubt that there are many examples of where events pan out like your anecdote but equally there will be many that are the antithesis.
Having also worked in a university, I have a pretty healthy distaste for academics and their tendency to make everything about how clever they are. That’s the struggle, though isn’t it. For an academic to write anything of value about Autechre, they would first have to acknowledge that Autechre are smarter than they are.
A near impossible feat for most of the academics I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with.*
*This is a joke. I’m sure there’s plenty of perfectly lovely academics out there just waiting to meet me.
I guess… I’ve met some academics who are complete clowns. And I’ve met some who were really sound. Then, I’ve met non-academics who are complete clowns. And I’ve met some who were really sound. It’s almost as if there isn’t a link between how cool someone is and what they do for a living or how well they did at school…
Critical theory can have nothing to do with the intention of the author with my full understanding and still be interesting and relevant to me. Perhaps it helps to separate the two, certainly not all of the persons who perform readings frame their narratives as the authors’ or creators’ direct intentions.
“Pretentious” can be wanky and it can be deep, it really depends on the effort as perceived self importance of the critic, alongside how it sways me and my ideas.
Pretty funny how this thread degenerated - computer music as a discipline and Max/MSP as a tool are products of windbag academics and a culture of research funding that is in rapid decline. Arts faculties here just had their budgets slashed and student fees doubled, so the good news is that pretty soon there won’t be any arts academics left to get mad at
There are pompous, pretentious, arrogant know-it-alls in every field. There are also generous, insightful and helpful educators who enrich our lives and understanding of every field (who also happen to be much more humble and softly spoken than their more boisterous counterparts). I’ve known both in literary criticism and philosophy and music and history and it’s an absolute travesty we’re losing them both to the new dark ages, in addition to people using the unhelpful ones to generalize them all.
We’re not blessed with perfect introspection. Sometimes others have insights into our actions that we ourselves lack. And sometimes we’re less than candid about our motivations.
There is much about academia that is wretched, abused, or copy-pasted, but I will defend the ideas of examination, analysis, and modelling, when done in the right spirit.
Yes, of course.
But I bet there’s a lot more pompous, pretentious, arrogant know-it-alls in academia than there are in, say, the fire service or on building sites.
Different careers attract different kinds of people, and often find themselves with an overabundance of certain personality types when compared to the society around them. Fascist bully boys in the Police, for example. Now I’m not saying that if you’re Old Bill that you are a fascist bully boy, but the chances are definitely better than if you’re a nurse.
I worked in front line care for 15 years and, other than the migrant workers, who were there to work, there was an overabundance of a certain type of middle age woman who’d run out of her own kids to bully, so started working in care so they could bully someone else’s.
Of course academia has more than it’s fair share of pretentious arrogant know-it-alls, because what other career would a pretentious, arrogant know-it-all be drawn to, bricklaying?
Anyway, back to Autechre. They often use the tools and methods of the academic, but they use them to make music of such emotional and instinctive depth that the average academic doesn’t really know what to do with it. They struggle to frame it within the references that they understand, such as the likes of Xenakis and his UPIC machine or John Cage and his silence, when Autechre’s references are a little more proletarian, such as the dancefloors and raves of the late 80’s and early 90’s or early hip-hop records.
Also, academic music isn’t really for dancing to, on the whole, but I’ve busted out some of my best moves in the darkness of an Autechre gig. That shit is groovy and, say what you like about Xenakis/Stockhausen and the like (who are all obviously awesome too), but you’d struggle to call any of it groovy.
There’s so much academic focus on how or why autechre make the sounds they do that people sometimes forget to fully appreciate the actual music itself.
