Aphex deteriation | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 167 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2613410
Today 2
Topics 127499
  
 
Messageboard index
Aphex deteriation
 

16 hours on 2002-01-27 02:00 [#00075231]



Is it natural that artists get worse within 10 years, where
they get a bit too comfortable with the adoration? Or is it
they are trying to re-live their youth by trying to be
cotradictory(splg)


 

Aktium from bat country on 2002-01-27 04:43 [#00075264]



not true


 

Gwion Gallt from Cymru on 2002-01-27 05:11 [#00075273]



Eh? He's getting better mate. Watcha onaboot. Oh! You mean,
Because Aphex Twin didn't release another pop record hes
magically turned into a talentless loser. Fuck you


 

laughable butane bobby on 2002-01-27 05:33 [#00075284]



actually i once made up a drunken theory, but nobody ever
likes it.

about the better music artists... ( in general)

first 5 years- creative bursts of energy, still learning
and developing their own idiom and style, often naive.

5 to 10 years into the career- the artist has developed
their style, and produces less, but has mastered their
style. often this is their best sounding stuff, but
sometimes may lack some of the energy of the early years.

10 to 15 years- the artists are starting to lose it, they
are still good at what they do, but they lack the unique
creativity of the early years, and may imitate their younger
selfs in vain (go old skool). often the artist tries to
assimilat (ripoff) newer styles at the same time, often to
lame effect.

15 to 20 years - the artists have pretty much become a joke,
totally losing relevance to modern music, trying to relieve
the salad days. the only fans are those who have followed
them for a decade.

after 20 years - the artist(s) finally give up trying to do
anything new, and if they have built up enough of a fan
base, they essentially become a cover band of themselves,
playing for nostalgia and having reunion tours, playing all
the old songs in front of an aging but willing fanbase. if
they are good enough, they can leech out a lot of money
doing this for years. they can try to record new songs, but
nobody will give a shit.

hopefully, Aphex can avoid this cycle to some extent

... of course people tend to get stuck on the same bands,
and as they grow older, they just listen to the same stuff,
never understanding anything new or different, so i guess
the typical "fan" goes through a similar cycle.



 

Ophecks from Nova Scotia on 2002-01-27 05:52 [#00075291]



There is ONE exception to the rules, and that's the Beatles.
62-69, 7 years, and they got better and better and better...
George was improving, so who KNOWS what they could have done
into the '70s... don't judge their crap solo stuff, the 4 of
them together had magic. Too bad they couldn't sort things
out in their personal lives. I swear, if they stayed around
music would be a different landscape right now.

Aphex is past his prime (odd, considering I think Drukqs is
his best) and I don't think he'll match SAW2 or anything
again.


 

Ophecks from Nova Scotia on 2002-01-27 05:54 [#00075292]



Observe... Rolling Stones....

Sad state of affairs for a once proud band.


 

titsworth_courier from washington, dc on 2002-01-27 06:37 [#00075294]



i disagree. the beatles would be another rolling stones. let
it be is garbage, and abbey road has some filler on it.
sorry, but their moments of brilliants in the last year or
two of their career were coupled with rehash and uninspired
hogwash. i don't know if aphex will ever make anything as
beautiful as SAW2, but it's not really fair to say he's
passed his prime cos he hasn't made an ambient album since
then. for all we know he could have made a lot of ambient
tracks since SAW2 that might be better and he just doesn't
want to release them. maybe in the future he'll return to
ambient. who knows. but it's silly to say that's where his
career peaked. his non-ambient tracks are getting better and
better, and anything that he's made since SAW2 that you
might put in the same vein as that album i'd probably
disagree with.


 

laughable butane bob on 2002-01-27 06:58 [#00075297]



well, my "five year plan theory" works better with bands,
but most bands are really just the result of one or two
people (which might include the producer), the other people
are just along for the ride.

i think Richard could have a long and lucretive career, he
could, if he so desired, do soundtracks or other multimedia
stuff. but you have to face reality... artists don't keep
churning out original stuff forever, most music artists
(really tends to be a younger frield, in terms of energy)
just start repeating themselves. even painters tend to have
a period where they have a burst of creativity, which they
cannot sustain.


 

m on 2002-01-27 07:08 [#00075300]



interesting. when you start you're sort of experimental. but
you learn techniques and how to use your tools and medium,
and new ideas and techniques combine with old ones, like the
history of invention. Ultimately it is pointless. the
creator gets bored doing the same thing maybe and even if
something is particularly interesting they may avoid it just
because they already did it. art's purpose is to ease
boredom or to dull reality by making some more interesting
data for the senses to register than can be gotten from any
one time during your 40 hour/wk job.


 

titsworth_courier from washington, dc on 2002-01-27 07:17 [#00075302]



2 of my favorite groups, nin and radiohead, have been in the
game since the late 80s (radiohead took 4 years to release a
full length). nin has always been experimental, and if you
think the fragile was rehash you didn't listen carefuly
enough. trent's new stuff on the 'still' disc is another
progression. and radiohead, 10+ years into being a band
together, are more innovative than they ever were before. so
there are definitely exceptions to that. of course there are
also a lot of good examples of how you're right, like u2 and
rem who both released "classic" style albums in 00 or 01
that were truthfully unimpressive.


 

AMinal from toronto, canada on 2002-01-27 07:38 [#00075305]



yes i agree butane bob
most bands and some electronic artists (from what ive seen
so far) seem to go through those stages
although the length of each stage might change, they're
usually there:
1st album - lots of creative engergy, w/ glimpses of true
potential, but lacks direction, or is not harnessed to
fullest extent
2nd album - continues w/ that engergy but this time
expressed fully, technically superior, excellent stuff
3rd album - perhaps gets over confidant or something cus
they just rehash the same shit without doing anything new..
try to ride their wave of success from their previous work,
while techically similar it lacks the same energy and
becomes stale. or even worse, might make the mistake of
thinking they can be good at something new

uh.. u can replace album w/ stage/phase or whatever..

im getting too tired to keep typing



 

Ophecks from Nova Scotia on 2002-01-27 08:20 [#00075308]



For your comments about the Beatles, I'm going to kill you,
Tits.

Not tonight, it's almost 4:30 AM.


 

Xanatos from NYC on 2002-01-27 08:49 [#00075312]



"Is it natural that artists get worse within 10 years, where
they get a bit too comfortable with the adoration? Or is it
they are trying to re-live their youth by trying to be
cotradictory(splg)"

shut the fuck up man. So you didn't like drukqs, great,
thats fascinating. Aphex's early shit was worse than his
middle stuff its obvious. relive their youth? what the hell
are you talking about?
Sorry to attack you, but you sound like an asshole.


 

m on 2002-01-27 08:53 [#00075315]



Yeah! I agree with Xanatos!


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-27 09:58 [#00075318]



That was just an opinion. I agree, I like AFX's older stuff
a lot better than I do Drukqs crap. I mean thats my opinion,
so what does it matter, thats how someone sees it.


 

Darth manchu on 2002-01-27 11:07 [#00075321]



I dont really like comparing old to new aphex basically on
the account that they are completely different. I enjoy the
older and newer stuff for different reasons.

It would be an easier arguement if he'd always done ambient
or always done all the d 'n' b stuff. He has so many ideas
and styles that it isnt really fair to compare it all.


 

Nazi Pokemon from UK on 2002-01-27 16:52 [#00075347]



thanks for signing my guestbook darth manchu :)

lol i thought it was one of my mates fucking around when i
read it :P


 

-a from --- on 2002-01-27 19:41 [#00075368]



a lot of people try to analyze music too much. it's fine if
you analyze music, but if you analyze it to a point where it
takes away the pleasure of listening, then you're analyzing
too much. basically, it all comes down to listening
pleasure. if it sounds good don't worry about if it's "old
school" or what not. just enjoy it for what it is. music
is about emotion, it isn't easy to create a new sound to
provoke the same emotions that you have felt. if you want
something really "new," then try to create a sound that
provokes something you haven't felt before.


 

The_Funkmaster from Newfoundland, Canada on 2002-01-27 19:43 [#00075369]



yes yes, so true... music doesn't have to be mind blowingly
inovative to be good... it just needs to be good, to be
good... if you enjoy it, that's all that matters... Boards
of Canada aren't considered as innovative as Aphex Twin, or
Autechre, but they have a great sense of melody, and put a
lot of emotion into their music, and a lot of people love
their music... because it's good...


 

Spud from Susanville, CA on 2002-01-27 23:37 [#00075429]



First off Drukqs is not crap and that's that.

Second, the only reason people begin to hate a band is when
they become popular. For example once they show up on TRl
they are considered sellouts. Um, excuse me but isn't it the
so-called fans that make the decision on which the band
should be on TRL or not? Yes, it sure is. The band has no
say in it. So if you think about it it is not the band's
fault, it's the fans.

Another good example of a band getting better every time is
Tool, they have never produced a dissapointing cd, and for
those of you who think Lateralus sucks just because it got
popular should get your heads out of your asses and use your
brains for once.


 

jeff on 2002-01-28 00:06 [#00075432]



'the only reason people begin to hate a band is when they
become popular'

spud? you one dimensional dick! there's never one reason to
anything. re-think your shallow comment and try again...


 

umbriel from quebec...the old on 2002-01-28 00:27 [#00075436]



laughable butane bob : david bowie isnt part of the cycle. i
dont have any more exemples. but i think your theory is well
thought but in pratice, its really not realistic


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-28 00:48 [#00075442]



Its just someones opinion, how many times must that be said
in a messageboard. Someone doesnt like someone because they
are famous, thats totally fine, just as a good reason to
them as any other, obviously. I dont hate a band or person
because they are popular in the music industry. What does it
matter, its fine if someone thinks or believes that.


 

Xanatos from NYC on 2002-01-28 01:05 [#00075448]



Reflex: Obviously everything anyone posts is their
opinion.

If someone says "Drukqs sucks", they're not saying "You
think Drukqs sucks", they are saying "I think Drukqs sucks".

I don't think that needs to be clarified over and over
again.


 

Kalaim Badkaama from France on 2002-01-28 01:48 [#00075462]



Druqks sucks.
Druqks don't suck.
Druqks sucks.
Druqks don't suck.
Hell! y people don't just listen to music instead of beeing
disapointed cuz the album is not what they waited (i mean
crazy aphex twin?) i liked some tracks, and i liked the way
he tortured a piano to make those sounds... that cd don't
suck. only people do.
Druqks sucks.
Druqks don't suck.
Druqks sucks.
Druqks don't suck.


 

jeff on 2002-01-28 02:03 [#00075472]



It does need clarifying with you Xantos because you are very
pedantic. Your arse licking doesn't do you credit. It's an
opinion and a fact to me, I am interested to what other
people think. Why you pick up on something that has nothing
to do with the actual statement is pathetic. This is a
message board not an english class you silly twat!


 

Ophecks from Nova Scotia on 2002-01-28 02:33 [#00075485]



As for me, and I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks,
I always assume I'm right... (why the fuck would I continue
thinking the way I do if I thought I was WRONG???)...

Drukqs is incredible, blows the RDJ Album, and everything
else, out of the water. The complexity mixed with the
minimalistic tracks make the RDJ Album seem boring to me by
comparison. There's nothing on there that matches
Vordhosbn.

(And OF COURSE, contents of this post are OPHECKS' opinion.
:-D )


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-28 02:38 [#00075490]



Fair enough, ofcourse it makes sense, its right to you, and
what I think is right to me. But its just opinion, some
people talk as if it were some sort of fact. Thats all.

I just cant get around the new stuff, its not too
"difficult" or too "complex" for me, its boring actually. I
mean ive said it before, it is complex, but thats what
turned me off from it, I dont care how precise he can get,
thats not hard to do. I just dont think he went in the right
direction for me. Not at all.


 

Ophecks from Nova Scotia on 2002-01-28 02:44 [#00075499]



I dunno... Ziggomatic has so much going on, I just CAN'T get
bored.

But it would be nice if he's tone it down a bit... be more
laid back, make another ''Alberto Balsalm'' type of track.
Drukqs is SORELY missing some prettier moments. The piano
tracks are nice, but I want nice, atmospheric synths and
some strings. A really fleshed out masterpiece, not the
little soft ditties he sprinkles around Drukqs.

A track like Fingerbib, Balsalm, Flim, IZ-US... I guess I
want him to do that again... but I can't complain about
CockVer10 and St Micheals Mount, holy hell... gimme some
Aphex Acid.


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-28 02:57 [#00075511]



One big problem I found with the album besides that I just
dont enjoy it much, is that it seems as if it is made with
LOTS of filler.


 

Spud from Susanville, CA on 2002-01-28 03:02 [#00075515]



Jeff, next time think before you type out anything, as your
comments contribute absolutely nothing, other than the
obviousness of your major stupidity. I don't need to
re-think my "shallow" comment because it wasn't shallow to
begin with you asshole.


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-28 03:09 [#00075525]



Spud: uhm - well soley coming onto a messageboard to tell
someone their are an asshole doesnt contribute one damn
thing, if anything it takes away from what can be lent in to
the discussion.

Drukqs..... nothing left for me to say about that, anyone
rearrange the songs and play them the new way you arranged
them? to me it doesnt change the mood of the CD, which I
believe is a bad thing. Anyone?


 

corn grower from Iowa on 2002-01-28 03:12 [#00075527]



I'm actually in the process of doing that right now. I'm
trying to figure out a good order to put the songs I like
onto one cd. Right now all I have for sure is that I want
it to open with 54 cymru beats and end with ziggomatic.
Any suggestions?


 

|REFLEX| from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on 2002-01-28 03:13 [#00075528]



I started With 54 as well...... I dunno I tried, but I
couldnt do it. Go for it though, do what you will, make it
better, I sure couldnt.


 


Messageboard index