psychology of an autechre listener | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 321 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614103
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
psychology of an autechre listener
 

offline 3051 from Vietnam on 2004-05-19 10:46 [#01195847]
Points: 626 Status: Addict



What about me listening random noise?
Does it make me a mental case??

I am insulted.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 11:03 [#01195886]
Points: 21452 Status: Lurker



Interesting thread. I wrote something and then deleted it
which is just as well.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2004-05-19 11:19 [#01195903]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator



hahahahahahaha


 

offline pf from Finland on 2004-05-19 11:48 [#01195948]
Points: 3316 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #01195737



About this plaid and autechre thing. I dont feel that Plaid
is pop music, I've played it to people who listen to the
basic MTV pop music. They didnt get a grip of it, said that
its just random sounds and reminds them of space.

And in my opinion Plaid is much more accessible when
compared to Autechre. Plaid resembles pop music much more.
The instruments they use are quite typical. when it comes to
the structure and melodies and the whole flow of the track,
it resembles pop music in many ways.

Autechre in my opinion is much more about the patterns of
the sounds and often the structures and the composition of
the songs is complex. Allso the sounds are really
electronic.



 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2004-05-19 11:57 [#01195956]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker | Followup to VLetr: #01195220



i agree with everything you said completely about the brain
types and how we perceive the patterns of the glitchy
sounds.
i had to let it sink in but now i immerse myself in every
(LPA) track i hear now. i still love the early material
aswell mind you. my friends cant stand (LPA) they think its
boring and too noisy, we even smoked a bowl and listened to
chiastic slide and i still couldnt get a single good word
out of them. they didnt understand the patterns which i can
follow so well.
im not trying to be a prick saying a have more grey matter
or anything, but it is true that only certain listeners will
indulge in (LPA) and it very well may be somehow related
with people who have a highly functioning autistic mind.



 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 11:58 [#01195958]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



LPA looks so fucking gay.


 

offline Mertens from Motor City (United States) on 2004-05-19 12:19 [#01195984]
Points: 2064 Status: Lurker



I'm interested in understanding the psychology of a
non-autechre listener as well. For those who don't like AE,
please tell me how you feel when you hear them, what you
think they lack.


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 12:25 [#01195990]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



I've finally escaped the evil clutches of work and can
respond properly to everyone's comments.

Okay I think people slightly misinterpreted some of my
pompously worded posts (except Keyfumbler, you seemed to
understand exactly what I was saying). This isn't about
people who listen to autechre being more 'intelligent', and
it's not really even about autechre. Recent autechre is just
the best known example of the kind of abstract rhythms I'm
talking about. (by the way Tolstoyed I'm gonna check
out that Tokyo+1 shit you keep bigging up)

Ecnadniarb: "some people will
like a certain type of pasta based dish while someone who
likes pasta equally as much will detest it...would you say
that the person who dislikes it has a less refined
pallet?"

No, I wouldn't. Very important point. Let's say that we find
a whole group of people (group A) prefer dish A, and a whole
group of people (group B) prefer dish B, and of course they
all like pasta just as much as each other. But then we find
that group A have something else in common; they all pull up
their trousers left leg first. Wouldn't you be interested in
finding out why there's a correlation between liking
dish A and having a particular way of pulling up your
trousers? It doesn't mean you're implying that left leg
first is any better than right leg first, or that dish A is
any better than dish B.

Now let's say there's another group of people, an extreme
group, called group AA. These guys can only wear
trousers on their left leg, can't stand wearing them on
their right, and they suffer because of it (social
exclusion, a fucking cold leg when it snows, etc.). If
knowing more about the characteristics of group A (eg. Their
fondness for pasta dish A) can help us understand how to
prevent people being group AA, then we should do everything
we can to investigate the link.


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 12:26 [#01195993]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



Supposition is not fact. Damn straight. But
everything I’ve said could be tested to some extent by
experiments with large numbers of subjects listening to more
or less fucked up beats etc.

All ae's recent stuff is just as loop based as
their earlier stuff, they are quite basic loops as
well...then the added goodness comes in :D

Haha yeah I think this is true too. But the rhythms in the
loops are much harder to digest, they’re jarring on first
listen, not quite right. This turns off a lot of people. But
then for some, after a while, they start to make sense. For
me this comes when I can visualise the beat in my head, like
in a sequencer, which is partly because doing my own music
production has changed the way my mind processes rhythms.

Matvey: "I'm trying to pass the mentioned
test."

It’s not supposed to be a test that you pass or don’t
pass! You could just lie and get ‘full’ marks. It’s a
(frivolous and not at all diagnostic) way of seeing where
you lie on the spectrum from systemising to empathising.
Being a more systemising, glitchy beat-loving kinda guy
doesn’t make you better or worse than someone who
understands loads about (say) animals, can read their
feelings really well, and has a natural instinct for
empathising.

Sneakattack: a person's raw computational power
is
being shown more and more in recent studies to have certain

similarities to computer architecture.

Actually I think the computer analogy is on its way out. The
brain is so much more structurally complicated than a
computer; perhaps the most important diff is that the brain
works in parallel, computer in serial. Parallel activity
leads to synchronous activity (leads to consciousness….?
Who knows).

There's no such thing as a person’s raw computational
power. Eysenck spent decades trying to find a biological
substrate for intelligence (speed of neuronal transmission
etc.) and got nowh


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 12:27 [#01195995]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



he got nowhere. if anyone actually managed to read all that
shit.


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 12:33 [#01195998]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



Occupation count (from more systemising to more empathising
i reckon)

engineering/maths/compsci/physics/convicted car thief
IIIII

music/psychology/philosophy
III

drama/film studies
II

DON'T TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUSLY!! professions are a dumbass
way of measuring someone's brain type. weak correlations.
which is why I'm interested in the whole abstract music
thing; I reckon it's a much much better way.



 

offline KainiIndustries from over the roof floats billy on 2004-05-19 12:36 [#01196006]
Points: 1253 Status: Regular



add another to the compsci pile


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 12:39 [#01196009]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to VLetr: #01195990 | Show recordbag



But even by your own comments everything you stated in your
first couple of posts is supposition based on nothing more
than your opinion, yet you presented your ideas as facts.

You must have noticed it takes a bit of time before LPA
songs properly make sense. Some people are better able to
(or have a greater drive to) make sense of autechre songs
than others;


The fact that you imply people either have an ability or
drive to "make sense" of the tracks directly implies an
incapability rather than disliking by those who don't enjoy
listening to ae.

I just think you are pretty much wrong in all you say, and
considering you are supposed to be a graduate in psychology
I think you are allowing your own experience and opinion of
the music to cloud your overall judgement...not a goot sign.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 12:41 [#01196011]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to VLetr: #01195998 | Show recordbag



I am also a pimp, which is part of the arts (personally I
would class motor vehicle theft as an art as well...although
it does have scientific and psychological issues attached).


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-05-19 13:00 [#01196065]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to VLetr: #01195993



well of course the computer analogy fundamentally doesn't
work--any consideration of the component makeup of a brain
vs. that of a computer makes it ridiculously obvious to any
consideration that they are completely different, which is
precisely why it is fun to see where they are alike.
And those studies I quoted are recent.

any analytical machine of any form, be it a silicon
computer, a human mind, or a water driven calculator, can in
some way have computational power calculated. The human
mind is no different. Sure there are lots and lots of weird
specializations, but at the heart it is a general analysis
machine, and this fact makes up well for any deficiencies in
the specializations in any individual. I'm hedging on
details because I'm lazy, so just believe me, and the robot
army I'm going to create based on my principles.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 13:11 [#01196081]
Points: 21452 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01195958



Well it's practically a seperate genre from, um, EPA, so a
distinction is necessary. Of course you probably all know
more about the massively parrallel computer theory than I. I
just heard of it from reading Daniel Hillis. People still
seem to know little of how brain work. The idea of a brain
figuring itself out is oddly striking... massively parrallel
computers are perhaps closer than linear computing, but who
knows how it really works. Brains have years and years of
selection through evolution at the heart of their creation
and evolution will use every sleight of hand,
counterintuitive subtle trick at it's disposal and is
therefore superior to anything deliberately engineered. But
the most interesting field of psychology I've read about is
the protoscience of memetics. There are a handful of species
that give a shit about what we think of as music, seemingly
ones that are more advanced memetic replicators like birds.
Cats and dogs don't seem to care for example, then again
they communicate in long simple sounds, not digital enough
to carry much information. As to why someone would like
autechre over something else.. well I tried to reply to that
again but it was stupid again so deleted it. I should really
be doing something worthwhile with my time...


 

offline Mertens from Motor City (United States) on 2004-05-19 13:19 [#01196092]
Points: 2064 Status: Lurker



How many here hate chocolate? If so, please describe how you
feel when tasting it.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 13:31 [#01196115]
Points: 21452 Status: Lurker



I want taste buds all over my face and skin so tasting will
be as informative as seeing.


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 13:35 [#01196127]
Points: 793 Status: Regular | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01196009



Sneakattack: any analytical machine of any form, be it a
silicon computer, a human mind, or a water driven
calculator, can in some way have computational power
calculated... at the heart it is a general analysis
machine

I agree with the former, disagree with the latter. Yes you
can in some way have computational power calculated, but it
depends entirely on the task at hand.

A computer approaches two logically equivalent problems in
the same way. A human mind however is much more dependent
upon context; so we approach a social problem using
particular modules, a tool-based problem using others, etc.,
even if it is mathematically reducible to the same problem.
this is how evolution has shaped our brains.

If a human is a superior computational device to a squirrel
(which I presume you would agree), why would a squirrel beat
a human at a test of storing and retrieving nuts? because
their minds are specialised for this task. so it is with
humans, but some humans are better at certain things than
others. how else can you expain uneven IQ profiles (the
extreme being autistic savants)?

Ecnadniarb: I didn't present my ideas as facts, in fact I
frequently said "I think that..." which is a world apart
from "it is the case that...".

I think you are allowing your own experience and opinion
of
the music to cloud your overall judgement

Quite how anyone would form an opinion on anything - science
or otherwise - based on anything other than their own
experience, is beyond me.

If you mean I'm overly projecting my own subjective
experience as objective, well that's why I posted it on a
message board, to see if anyone else thought similarly. The
response is mixed but that's what I expected, and at least
it's generated an interesting debate. These debates always
end up becoming adversarial but hell, we all enjoy a good
argument.

w M w - I reckon psychosisis is the most interesting area of
psychology.

I'm off to systematemise me a sandwich.


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-05-19 13:42 [#01196140]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker



ecna: careful, your description of a computer's behavior is
missing the point of software. A computer _can_ think of
millions of things if programmed correctly. If programmed
badly it does things mindlessly; a lump of unprogrammed
silicon chips is just as pointless as a lump of
undifferentiated undeveloped neurons. Eventually there will
be common software enabling computers to solve problems in a
general way like humans.

with a general intellect I can hone my body and mind in a
way a squirrel cannot, so without developing devices I could
slowly improve improve improve, whereas it would be left
with its built in mechanisms. Of course this general
mechanism has overhead, which is why I start out slower than
that which has it innate, but...

this argument is turning suck. No one wants to listen to
anyone, and everyone thinks that only they are correct


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 13:44 [#01196148]
Points: 21452 Status: Lurker



heh heh


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-05-19 13:47 [#01196153]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular | Followup to sneakattack: #01196140



SHUT UP

I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG!!!111

END OF DISCUSSIOPNmn[p


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-05-19 13:49 [#01196162]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker



evacuate thread! board the fuckwagon consort! appease
appease!


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 13:52 [#01196175]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



I didn't even mention computers. :P


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-05-19 13:53 [#01196177]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular



you just did mr.

no escape now.


 

offline steve mcqueen from caerdydd (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-19 14:30 [#01196255]
Points: 6563 Status: Regular



does a dog have buddha nature?


 

offline telica from london/york on 2004-05-19 14:38 [#01196270]
Points: 789 Status: Regular



w00t! i love online quizzes - so good for work avoidance.

anyway, i just did those bbc tests:

apparently, my empathy quotient is 56 and my systemizing
quotient is 38.
I appear to be above average for *both*….

i'm also female and love autechre.

what does this say about me, VLetr?

should I be concerned? : p

heh


 

offline DeadEight from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-05-19 15:45 [#01196342]
Points: 5437 Status: Regular



i regret that i had to leave before finishing what i had to
say (although Keyfumbler did manage to sum up a basic
important part of it... which unfortunately doesn't sound
very compelling unless you provide the kind of elaboration
that i had to time for)... at the risk of drawing the ire of
someone who probably knows a lot more than i do about
psychology, i must disagree with the idea of throwing out
the navel-gazery of Freud... i certainly don't agree with
Freud on a lot of issues (he seemed quite short-sighted at
times, particularly in his amusing inability to read
himself), but i do think that some of his key ideas, as
reiterated by the likes of Jacques Lacan (who is generally
much more agreeable, imo) are valuable...
one mustn't underestimate the performative aspect of a
person's will to identify themselves with certain objects
and not with others... genetics and brain structure (or
whatever the proper term is for describing such things)
certainly factor in, but they can hardly account for all the
exceptions and aberrations which can and will arise,
regardless of the assertion...


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-05-19 16:10 [#01196387]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker



this thread is very intriguing to me..
and it's funny how heated the debate can be when it comes to
ideas/discussions of this nature. i guess that's what
happens when a brain tries to rationalise or understand the
nature of itself. the result is varying, like everyone's
perception of existence. the brain is just fascinating.. and
ultimately its methods and unseen motives are
non-understandable, at least to me..
i took the tests and ended up in the dead centre.. or
"balanced"..
as for autechre, i like their later material especially. i
mean, the earlier material is definitely more
straightforward and the emotional aspect of it is much
easier to grasp. but the later stuff has a much more random
and haphazard feel to it.. like it's representative of the
world. i get a feeling of a human spirit fighting against
the relentless and oft-cold and chaotic nature of the world.
i don't necessarily look for any unseen patterns in their
music.. part of what i like about their music is that it
seems like it is largely influenced by chance and
spontaneous or accidental actions.. like they aren't so
caught in the whole "my music has to sound this way
because that is how i envisioned it in my head" it's more
like they just let it happen.. and let thinly-fleshed out
ideas conduct themselves, instead of the music being so
pre-meditated.. it seems almost impromptu.. in that the only
the creation is the music.. i tend to look at their
later stuff as filling a certain niche between spontaneity
and meticulousness. i mean, you can tell they put lots of
time into tweaking certain things to their likely, but the
overall composition and structure and general meddling that
encompasses it all seems to be more "let" happen, as apposed
to "made" happen.. if that makes any sense..
it is interesting what was said about autism and such.. i
can definitely see how someone with it could not stand
something like late-autechre.. in the same way that they
cant cope with life.. its random chaotic and unplanned..


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-05-19 16:13 [#01196388]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01196387



{cont.}
.. but i wonder if keyfumbler's roommate could tolerate
well-recorded jazz? i could see that being a bit more
tolerable.. because its not trying to be blatantly
random-sounding.. or at least they do try to find order in
the chaos.. and follow some rule of harmony/melody/etc.. its
not just chaos for the sake of chaos..
not that any music really can be chaos.. I mean once
it is recorded it has order in that it is the same every
time the disc is played..

and a sentance in there should've read "tweaking
things to their liking"


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-05-19 16:16 [#01196395]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01196387



ah sheit another mistake..
the sentence:
"..in that the only the creation is the music.. "
should've read:
"..in that, only the creation is the music.."



 

offline nacmat on 2004-05-19 16:54 [#01196434]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



fact 1. I love autechre´s music, from early 90´s layered
tracks to early 2000´s abstract glitch

fact 2. they are incredible and do incredible music

fact 3. their music is full of emotions

fact 3. their music is not more for male than for women....
thats just ridiculous

fact 4. I like the word "fact"


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 16:55 [#01196436]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #01196434 | Show recordbag



listen to my new spam and tell me what you think? :)


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2004-05-19 17:05 [#01196447]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to VLetr: #01195990



don't, im only joking with that brinkmann release, it's
great and i like it more to any autechre, but im not their
biggest fan so that's understandable...
but in case you'd really want to check him out, you can find
some info about it here


 

offline nacmat on 2004-05-19 17:16 [#01196461]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01196436



where?


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 17:19 [#01196464]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #01196461 | Show recordbag



here :)



 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2004-05-19 17:39 [#01196481]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker



wtf is LPA?


 

offline Doomed Puppy from on and off and on and off and on 2004-05-19 18:01 [#01196504]
Points: 1818 Status: Addict | Followup to AlbertoBalsalm: #01196481



autechre for non-faggots :P


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-05-19 18:03 [#01196506]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #01196434



I would say their music is very masculine.


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-05-19 18:09 [#01196521]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01196175



i must be retarded, I don't know why I labelled my comment
at you when it was clearly to vletr *Sigh*


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-05-19 18:10 [#01196526]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to sneakattack: #01196521 | Show recordbag



I worry about you sometimes. You seem a little down and low
on confidence/self esteem at the moment.


 

offline nacmat on 2004-05-19 18:11 [#01196529]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker | Followup to mappatazee: #01196506



explain


 

offline k_maty on 2004-05-19 20:19 [#01196746]
Points: 2362 Status: Regular | Followup to VLetr: #01195220



Wow thats a pretty good um... report or something. Now tell
us about how one guy from ae went to vocational school and
the other dropped out of college.


 

offline cygnus from nowhere and everyplace on 2004-05-19 21:22 [#01196776]
Points: 11920 Status: Regular



i dont understand any of this shit


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-20 03:21 [#01196969]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



Telica: yes, you should be very worried. Report back to my
clinic in six weeks’ time and I’ll teach you how to
think correctly. :P

DeadEight: my earlier dismissal of Freud was a little
extreme. Much of Freud’s ideas are now such a part of the
everyday folk psychology lexicon (the subconscious, the ego,
repression, etc.) that he no longer receives due credit for
the originality of his thought. I don’t really consider
Freud to be a scientist though because he never actually
tested any of his hypotheses by controlled experiment. I
appreciate Freud as I appreciate Nietzsche or Schopenhauer;
as a great theorist and writer, a great reflector on the
human condition, but not as an empirical psychologist.

Nacmat: fact 3. their music is not more for male than for
women....
thats just ridiculous
. So why are so few women into it?
Take a look around this message board…

Someone else (I forget who) mentioned heavy metal being male
dominated as well. I think that’s because it’s
aggressive, and men are affected by, and react to,
aggression much more instinctively than females; similarly I
think rhythmically obtuse electronica is male dominated
because males are affected by, and react to, complex systems
more instinctively than females. I’m talking about a broad
trend here and not a case-by-case rule. Obviously every
individual is unique.

I happen to believe that both the aggressive instinct and
the systemising instinct have been shaped by evolution along
the lines of males as hunters, females as
gatherers/nurturers; males being those with most to gain
from being receptive aggressors (competitive dominance
hierarchies) and from being receptive systemisers
(understanding the mechanics of hunting, and shaping tools
for hunting). This paragraph is of course conjecture;
shit that happened 5 million years ago is hardly testable in
the laboratory!



 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-20 03:23 [#01196970]
Points: 793 Status: Regular



Sneakattack: everything you’ve said has been intelligent
and interesting (in the genuine sense, not in the false
sense you assumed last time!). We disagree about whether the
human mind is essentially a general analysis machine or a
modular analysis machine, but your ideas are at least as
valid as my own, and the truth is probably somewhere between
the two (as always with such artificial dichotomies… see
nature/nurture argument). But what fun would conceding that
be in the heat of a debate? :P



 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2004-05-20 03:28 [#01196977]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator



again, girls don't like it coz they get nothing out of it.


 

offline Jarworski from The Grove (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-20 03:32 [#01196982]
Points: 10836 Status: Lurker



It's fucking bullshit about women not liking IDM, the Warp
Halloween party was heaving with girls, I know plenty of
girls in town who dig Aphex. If you haven't met any girls
who listen to IDM, I suggest you stop being so fucking ugly.


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-05-20 03:32 [#01196983]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular



i get RSI symptoms from only READING this thread


 

offline VLetr from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-05-20 03:34 [#01196984]
Points: 793 Status: Regular | Followup to tolstoyed: #01196977



same thing.


 


Messageboard index