Orbital - Wonky

Lots of music, of all stripes and genres, can either feel transcendent or sound functional; I'm not limiting that scope to just Orbital being transcendent or just dance music sounding functional.

Guys, everything sounds composed

Even improvisation is on-the-spot composition

Lots of music, of all stripes and genres, can either feel transcendent or sound functional; I'm not limiting that scope to just Orbital being transcendent or just dance music sounding functional.

― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 29 August 2012 7:18 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Difficult for me to overstate how much I dislike this term and by extension your use of it.

Guys, everything sounds composed

I keep mentally interpreting the use of the term here as meaning "sounds like it was written out on a stave beforehand".

Which term? Functional? Transcendent?

Transcendent.

Probably the only time I've ever really resented a review edit job was when I tried to explain how an album was good even though I disbelieve in the notion of transcendence (in this context) and the edit changed it to (effectively) "the album transcends its genre".

Why do you disbelieve in the notion of transcendence?

In the context of music I think that it implies a hierarchy of forms of enjoyment without substantiation, and elevates a certain stance vis a vis established musical forms as categorically superior rather than simply differentiated (in many cases rather predictably so).

In the contex of metaphysics, I believe the transcendent can only be conceived of negatively.

What about the notion of the sublime?

You can be sublime within genre.

This is a particularly weird argument to be having with regard to dance music because in house and some techno in particular, "functional" and "transcendent"/"sublime" tracks are interdependent. In a DJ set you need more functional tracks to make a big anthem or an injection of melody or a collection of astonishing sounds work properly. This stuff is hardwired into the structures of dance music.

Assuming that everyone agrees that the 'best' way to listen to and enjoy dance music is through a DJ set, though.

That's neither here nor there - I was making a point that idea of transcension or the sublime or whatever you choose to call it can occur within genre (and always does to a greater or lesser extent). Especially within dance music.

The DJ set thing was merely an example, this is an artist album we're talking about after all.

Fair enough; I'm a bit defensive after being lawyered by Tim again.

And as if by magic, Halcyon+on+on comes on in the office.

FWIW I think you have to respect the intentions of the producers and how the records were intended to be heard, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation.

See I'm torn on that, coming from a structuralism / semiotics POV where Barthes looms large and the 'death of the author' is a big thing. It's also incredibly difficult to expressly know someone's intentions with direct access to them, and inferring them through content, history, and other assumptions is dangerous. The music I like best, of whatever kind, is the stuff that I as a listener can find the most use for and draw the most positive experiences from, and if I use something in a way unintended by the author, so be it.

I'm a bit defensive after being lawyered by Tim again.

TBH I'm a bit over having this thrown at me when I'm not even using legal terminology.

I wasn't aware it was something that gets thrown at you that often, but I'm not on here all that much so may have missed that. It's not about legal terminology, though, not at all, it's about a certain approach to argument and logic that feels, when you're on the end of it, as if it's about finding loopholes and faultlines and proping them to the point where they collapse an argument (or someone's engagement with an argument). It's about a way of thinking, and turning that thought into discourse.

Well it gets thrown at me because I'm a lawyer.

I have no issue with the basic distinction you're drawing, I just think that talking in terms of the transcendent is an unhelpful way to make that point. I really don't think it's possible to use the term in a way that helps rather than hinders understanding. The nature of the word, and its baggage, means that it implies a lot more than the speaker really means.

When we say that an artist "transcends" a genre, typically what we really mean is that they're taking aspects of that genre and then reframing them within articulations that cannot be reduced to that genre.

But that is like saying mixing blue with yellow to make green results in a transcending of blue. This seems like an odd way to express the relationships of colours because we don't think of colours as existing in hierarchical relationships with one another.

And I think once we recognise that hierarchies aren't the best way to think about music, then we begin to feel that the language of transcendence is no longer appropriate.

'Wonky' is an attempt at the kind of dance album you used to get a lot of in the nineties - that "throw everything in, let's make a bangin' dance-pop album like 'Music For A Jilted Generation'" kind of thing, which is fine in my book. But what seemed to make 'In Sides' so good at the time was that it was a nineties crossover dance album that felt like a complete "piece" in six movements.

It was maybe one of the first times for a lot of rock-orientated fans looking to get into electronic music that they could access it in a way that didn't follow the typical 12-song rock album format - to be immersed in a complete, neatly-bound aural experience without having to have the "oh here's the hit", "oh here's the collab with popular singer of the moment", "oh, here's the ambient fillery bit" etc... 'Insides' just feels so satisfying, so concise, no wasted moments - a slick, well oiled engine with all the components in place. I get that this is the antithesis of 'Wonky''s sparkling maximalist all-star comeback record, but it's not what I personally was hoping for.

'In Sides' largely precedes that sort of dance album though, Jilted Generation aside (and even that is way more cohesive than, say, a mid-career Chemical Brothers album).

'Wonky' is actually considerably more concise and tight than 'In Sides' - not really a judgement, 'In Sides' is a much better record, but the tracks have so much time to build. It's not a case of "wasted moments", more "we have loads of time so let's be patient" and it works in its favour.

In the contex of metaphysics, I believe the transcendent can only be conceived of negatively.

board description

They're both different records entirely though. Obviously In Sides wouldn't work as a bunch of single edits, and Wonky probably was good to cut these tracks off when they did.

I don't mind the "composed" element of it at all. I love how it feels like an electrified orchestra in places. Outside of "Straight Sun" (which is too straightforward and sounds like something from The Altogether) all the hooks work for me. I never really bought into the idea that an album couldn't be truly great if it didn't think outside the box or "transcend" its genre.

Orbital is performing with Stephen Hawking at the London Paralympics! Like, right now!

"content rather than music"

vs

In the contex of metaphysics, I believe the transcendent can only be conceived of negatively.

battle of the sentences whose meaning i cannot fathom even a tiny bit

if you've not studied western philosophy then I wouldn't worry re the latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Orbital is performing with Stephen Hawking at the London Paralympics! Like, right now!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:55 PM (Yesterday)

Orbital at the Paralympics was brilliant. Being a bit of an Orbital know-nothing, it made me want to investigate further, and I know there's a box set of five of their albums just waiting for me next time I go record shopping.

Wish I'd seen them at the Paralympics ceremony.

iplayer

(iView for Tim FYI)

Wasn't it C4 rather than BBC? I'll investigate though, perhaps watch it at the weekend.

ah sorry

http://paralympics.channel4.com/video/index.html

They did Where's It Going with Stephen Hawking in front of them wearing Orbital glasses and speaking over the top of it, then manipulated his voice so it sounded like he was singing. Except the whole thing had a disabled band playing Spasticus Autisticus by Ian Dury sandwiched in the middle. The whole segment was insanely great.

Would love to know who suggested putting the glasses on Professor Hawking and how that actually happened.

Wow.

OK, calling one of your songs "Stringy Acid" is something that was too obvious even for Analords.

That might be one of my biggest bugbears in music, and something a lot of my favourite acts are guilty of (I'm looking at you, Blur). VCMG did this: 'Bendy Bass', 'Single Blip'. It's like a track spoiler and very annoying.

lol @ the idea of a track spoiler

I don't mind if it's a track spoiler, it's just lazy. And Orbital are one of those artists who are often quite clever with their titles. They could have done better.

The album's alright. It is an Orbital album, no more, no less. Beezledub is a bit embarrassing, like a dad rifling through their kids' record collection but apart from that it's solid.

Lazy, yes. Like they had a working title and never changed it. It winds me up and actually affects my enjoyment of the music because it makes me think they just thought "well this track's good enough, let's call it "Good Song".

(opening ceremony repeated on freeview channel "4seven" this afternoon, 4pm i think. might need to rescan your freeview channels though as 4seven is relatively new)

Didn't see the ceremony last nught. Happily an HD quality rip is available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kd4FgGSY5BY#t=12282s

Orbital comes in around 3hr 25. Now excuse me for a minute, I've got some dust in my eye. Again.

Just the Orbital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfmpxaLl6c4

thanks!

I'm actually really digging Beezledub, in general I dislike that style but they really did it right, in my eyes

Yeah, it's actually one of my favourites. Helps if you think of it as a mutant version of Satan.

well... it IS a mutant version of "Satan", so

Exactement.