Aphex Twin's _Selected Ambient Works Volume II_ is ten years old

hey crut

you can't get two people or a two machines to reliably identify two different sounds as having the same or different timbre in any reliable way, as opposed to things like loudness and tone and rhythm

yes, because there are no measurable standards for timbre like there are for loudness and tone and rhythm. but you were responding to how I was using the term "timbre," which has nothing to do with people or machines identifying anything. I'm talking about the nature of the actual sounds used on this album and how the tonal sounds are constructed in terms of their harmonic content (I used "timbral" as shorthand for this).

like I never said timbre wasn't subjective

In the examples you've given I don't think it would take too much deep thought to examine why you don't like them. I assumed the point of visiting a music discussion forum was to explore your tastes beyond "I like this, I don't like that." That's what the thumb icons on YouTube videos are for.

I get your point, and it seems completely justified to me to have to defend your opinions on matters of public policy, but all the big thinkers on on the phenomenon of taste and art (i.e. Bourdieu, Veblen, Simmel) seem to suggest that taste is not gained through an intellectualized process so much as it is inherited and formed as a response to your social class and environment. Yes, we are on a music discussion board, but it's leap to me to say that every single thing posted needs to have a strict thesis and argument behind it.

I wonder, though, whether we are allowed affective responses to art. Like, if I say I don't like Slipknot or Justin Bieber or Skrillex, do I need to explain myself? Do I actually have to go through some cognitive process where I must dissect my immediate reactions? I mean, my response to this stuff was never intellectualized before I had to justify to others my distaste for it.

That's...a really good question. I guess it might depend on whether you're trying to convince anyone you're right? "I don't like it...but I don't need you to agree with me" is fine as far as it goes, but "I don't like it, and I don't think it's good enough to like" is going to require more on your part.

xposts

right crut but when you say you detect timbral complexity and you're trying to figure it out still i could just as easily say i don't perceive timbral complexity and i've figured it out and both of us would be right

here's a way that an undefended negative or positive comment can be useful: if someone else who likes the same music as me notices that I like/dislike something, it gives them more information about whether to invest their time in checking it out.

Exactly, I've discovered a lot of great music on here b/c of certain users who are into a lot of the same stuff I am, it goes beyond RYM-level "hey you like electro? check out Boards of Canada they are great"

Put it this way: nobody has any obligation to explain/defend their tastes but don't be surprised if someone asks you to.

fair enough; but I also don't think I should be asked to do it because of moral outrage or personal affront either. It's just an etiquette thing.

right crut but when you say you detect timbral complexity and you're trying to figure it out still i could just as easily say i don't perceive timbral complexity and i've figured it out and both of us would be right

I don't even know what you're referring to here.

it's an eternal challenge to me to figure out the timbral and harmonic nature of the sounds he's using

there is no "timbral nature"

you can't get two people or a two machines to reliably identify two different sounds as having the same or different timbre in any reliable way

i must not understand words, how is it that people can distinguish between a piano and a guitar?

I think he's talking about ways to quantify timbral differences

still dgi, but that's ok

people can't distinguish between a piano and a guitar, not reliably

i mean people can say "it sounds like a piano" but then all john cage has to do is throw some shit on the strings and suddenly you don't know what you're hearing. or, i could put you blindfolded at the end of a tunnel and ask you to try to figure out whether you're hearing a clarinet through a tunnel or a pipe organ and you might not be able to.

timbre is like color. you can say "this beam of light is at this wavelength and intensity" or "that beam of light is at that wavelength and intensity" or even "this other beam of light is made of these different wavelengths at these different intensities"

but you can't say "this wavelength is blue" and "that wavelength is green", or draw a line anywhere. and if you fuck with things like luminosity and whatnot people will see pink dots when they're looking at a fluorescent blue and green grid or even a spinning black and white disc.

i guess what i'm saying is that like color, timbre is a perception that a lot of people tend to agree on in broad ways, but it's not actually quantifiable the way tone and volume are. so when you talk about the "timbral complexity" of aphex twin you might as well talk about the "mood complexity" or "feeling complexity" or "sound color complexity" because that's basically what timbre is, it's a subjective perception.

on the other hand, leaving aside the normative connotations, you could talk about relatively complex and simple rhythms in terms of how what sorts of fractions and how many you need to accurately describe that rhythm ("the bass drum and cymbal do four beats every four measures" vs "the drum is beating in 7/4 while the cymbal is doing 3/4") and you could talk about relatively complex and simple harmonies and melodies based on what kind of chords are being used and how many different tones, etc

btw i think that whole "spectral analysis" thing that keeps popping up on the blogosphere is rather nonsensical but that's just me

i mean this isn't to say that crüt can't say "i think this aphex song is incredibly timbrally complex" but it would be just as easy for iglu to say "i think this aphex song is incredibly timbrally boring" and both statements would carry about as much weight

whereas if crüt and iglu were both standing in the same spot and iglu said "i think this foghorn is louder than that mockingbird" then you could easily rig up a computer to check whether he's right or not (assuming crüt and iglu's ears are equally sensitive to matching frequencies!)

how do microphones pick up timbre?

how do cameras record color?

look i'm just nitpicking here, if crut just mean that there's subtle effects going on w/ the way different harmonics and overtones are emphasized in SAWII that's fine, that's most of what we hear when we hear timbre anyway, right?

Tbf, he already acknowledged that's what he meant:

yes, because there are no measurable standards for timbre like there are for loudness and tone and rhythm. but you were responding to how I was using the term "timbre," which has nothing to do with people or machines identifying anything. I'm talking about the nature of the actual sounds used on this album and how the tonal sounds are constructed in terms of their harmonic content (I used "timbral" as shorthand for this).

(Btw, I'd be interested to know your findings, crut!)

I never used the words "timbrally complex" wtf

you are completely misunderstanding my point here

You can call it timbrally complex if it floats your boat, but this thing is full of Vintage Keys presets and I've never really rated it. Would rather hit up De Natura Sonorum or Monoton or Soliloquies for Lilith or...

nobody has called this album "timbrally complex."

why is this thread full of trolls who don't know how to fucking read?

Richard D James certainly thought a lot of this album was yellow.

I mean it's one thing to argue about what timbre means, like talking about the subjectively complex aftertastes of a bottle of vintage wine. And it's perfectly fine to just like getting drunk on cheap plonk. But to argue that timbre - or the taste of wine - doesn't exist coz, like, you once read Derrida, that is folly.

I am just baffled that someone would think I don't understand what timbre entails just because I said... I don't even know what I said that caused someone to think that?

why are you guys so touchy all the time? you pulled this pissy routine on the "aphex twins i want in my vagina" thread too.

i'm sorry i'm misunderstanding your point. i will try to fucking learn to read. probably on another thread with less pissy people on it.

i admit, it is possible you understand timbre, though i'm still not convinced tbh

anyway next time just tell me to fuck off w/o the sputtering outrage and the disparaging of my reading comprehension

Amazing how anti-ambient this discussion became. More solid evidence, I guess, that this album just does not do the job!

\(o_O)/

8===D ~ ~ ~ \(o_O)/

They tried to assassinate my character, they tried to assassinate my swag

how about "spectral nature." let's use that instead of "timbral nature." are we happy now?

What if crut was standing right next to the mockingbird, but iglu was next to the foghorn?

"that mockingbird is quiet, but the foghorn out there is far away"

timbreland feat JT nely futoda
release pirate themed "booty shiver"

I was just curious about how timbre is converted to digital signal if it cannot be measured or quantified.

^

I guess he's saying that it isn't converted because timbre is entirely phenomenological in nature, like color or taste. we kind of just "make that part up" when we experience sound... somehow. i don't really get it, but i'm prepared to admit that i don't know much about the subject.

timbre is a combination of a bunch of different aspects of sound, we might not systematically quantify it, but we do have ways of describing it and it makes sense to analyze it or make observations about it just like we observe the use of color in paintings. we assign "colors" of noise based on how the sound is distributed on the frequency spectrum.

I've had this album playing quietly in the background as the skim this thread. I can hear it, but only if I want to hear it.

Hear a disc-rotted version of SAW II

though it quickly devolved into a clusterfuck, i'm glad that somebody took a whack at this album. i say that because i've never quite known what to make of it. it's often lovely and does generate a pleasant sonic atmosphere, suitable to gazing lazily off into space while imagining slow-motion industrial processes. despite that basic appeal, it often reminds me of the new-age meditation records a friend of mine used to own, simple recordings of vibrating bowls or drawn-out synth noodles. like SAW II, they were lovely and rather indistinct, useful in the provision of a certain atmosphere, but usually too elementary to reward active engagement outside their intended, meditative context.

i often wonder about time, place and chemical context in trying to come to grips with aphex twin's ambient music. at the time, this seemed to be a specific culture's chillout soundtrack of choice, the washed-out shadow of the dance music its audience might have been enmeshed in a few hours before putting it on. its appeal in dilated circumstances is undeniable, and i can see why EDM fans would choose this version of tones & drones over, say, sitar noodling, tibetan bowls, new age synths, or w/e. what i can't see is how SAW II is all that much more interesting or worthy of attention than than any other generally pleasant environmental music.

certain tracks do stand out (e.g., "stone in focus"), though given the context, it may miss the point to praise them for it. most do not. it seems to me that SAW II lacks the basic musicality and close focus on timbral and textural detail that makes eno's ambient 1 so rewarding, but i suppose that's subjective. i like it, on the whole, but it's hard for me to justify the idea that it deserves special recognition outside its obvious significance in its moment and influence on others. which in turn brings up the subjectivity of all artistic appreciation, the ridiculousness of any attempt to objectively "justify" any of it. people seem to think a great deal of it, and i suppose that has to be enough.

eno's ambient 1 is apples and oranges to this in my head. the comparable eno record is "on land" imo