Anticipating SYRO the new (2014) album by Aphex Twin

his "kids'" songs are LOOOOOOOL

I actually do have kids, one is quite musical and is producing things that would make you go "that's quite good, that is"

If he's really inventing the whole kids/music thing, that's quite sad really. Not sad as in pathetic, sad as in sad.

He did not actually invent 'having kids'. He has kids, he has two sons. He is lying about not having kids. However, he also lied and introduced his current (Russian) girlfriend as his wife. His ex-wife, (Chanelle James, unsure of the spelling?) the mother of his kids, is not Russian. But she definitely exists, she is a real person, even if the Russian girlfriend was impersonating her.

CHRIST WHY DO I KNOW THESE THINGS WHY DO I CARE ABOUT THESE THINGS. THERE IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME FOR STORING THESE FACTS IN MY BRANE.

Gonna come home tonight and realise my copy of Syro was just a notional concept and not a real album at all.

.. which is why I did not believe he invented his kids.

(honest)

There is no SYRO. He lied about the whole thing, these are just a bunch of demos he found when Rephlex was disbanded that he stuck his name on and put out, haha we all fell for it, what a kidder you are, Richard D.

he doesn't even exist. it's all a marketing trick dreamt up by some ravers on a come down in the late eighties. his entire life and career trajectory was worked out over the course of a couple of hours

I woke up and this thread was gone. Couldn't find it in search, couldn't even find a reference to Syro, period. But when my head the pillow last night it was at the top of my bookmarks.

I dreamt that I was eating a giant s950tx16wasr10, and when I woke up my Syro was gone!

This guy is doing my head in:

http://noyzelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/syrobonkers-part2.html

rich: in my old bank, it was on the first floor, sometimes buses would stop outside my house and i would be staring at people through the window really close, my mate ian said he saw me once in the studio from the bus!

This is going to sound crazy, but do you know how many times I've been on a 133 at that specific bus stop, way before I knew he lived there, and just had the creepy feeling that I was being watched, especially late at night?

i miss the basement in my old bank, amazing reinforced concrete walk in vaults, hugely reverberant, recorded many things in there, it was also haunted, vault opened itself once and the taps were left on maximum had to use a monkey wrench to turn them off, had to try hard for it not to creep me out.
how mental is that, nobody could have got in....so weird..
, it was a very creepy place, now there is a 22 storey block of flats there, on top of it, i bet they had a hard time getting those vaults out, reinforced concrete 5ft thick..

I've actually got photos of this happening. The Thameslink always used to stop and wait, right by the building site. So if you stood up and went in the front carriage, you could look right down into the building site. It took them ages to dig out the vault, it was just open to the air and you could look down into it, and it felt so fucking weird knowing that that had been his recording studio.

first floor basement?

One floor up from the very Basement.

Apologies for not being clearer: I spliced together two bits of the interview where he was explaining the locations detailed in the liner notes of the album. He recorded some tracks in the 'thin room' on the first floor of The Bank, and some in the vault or basement. I thought it was fairly obviously that a large building like a bank could have more than one floor, or that he could have more than one place where he recorded.

i'm sure, i was just being ridiculous.

One thing I've realised is that since I stopped being a musician, I've become less and less interested in long, extremely technical and extremely detailed expositions of gear.

Actually, wait, I was never really that interested in ~gearhead discussion for the sake of it~, even when I was a musician.

And yes, I'm sure that RDJ would say this was because I was a ~wake up sheeple~ or whatever and it's so terrible and shows I'm asleep. But though there is a certain amount of interest in "these are the tools I used to do this specific trick or particular sound" or "here is a toy which is important to me, and I think more people might enjoy", there's a certain kind of gearhead bravado where it's just talking about massive complicated gear ~for the sake of talking about gear~ that really turns me off.

He says in the interview that he is probably autistic, and I know that can be an autistic spectrum trait, of not understanding that other people might not be endlessly interested in the tiny, specific technical details of subjects they are not closely involved in. Which is, y'know, fair enough.

I am interested in gear that I use, and gear that is (even potentially) available to me. But that's the point where I switch off, that point where it becomes almost like boasting. His stories about how he got his synthis are funny, but there's a difference between interest in tools, for the interesting things that one can do with those tools, and the interest in tools just as objects and competition and comparison. And it's not just him, it's a common musician trait in lots of musicians. One I never had much patience for, and have less and less patience for as I get older.

I guess the moral of the story is, I should stop reading interviews with Aphex Twin, and instead just enjoy the music and accept that he is off on some wavelength different to mine. :-/

that's interesting. i always thought equipment/tech stuff was largely considered a well-kept secret among the Warp-tyle cabal, so it always surprises me when people like Aphex / Autechre etc reveal loads about the equipment they use. I'm not interested in gear either, mostly because I'm not interested in mimicking a particular artist's sound and also because I wouldn't be able to afford most of the hardware in a million years. But I am interested in working methods - not just 'I arrange my tracks like this', 'I create loops like this', but the actual thought processes and concepts that go into a piece of work. Like, when I spoke to Rob Brown about a year ago for tQ, I was really keen to try and extrapolate this from him and it wasn't easy, to be fair, but I did get a nice rundown of the various tracks on L-Event.

'What aspects of the creative/songwriting process are interesting to the non-musician' is one of those interview subjects that is just really really hard to strike the right balance.

I think that's why writers focus so much on the human elements of pieces of music (e.g. the vocals) to the exclusion of the non-human. That is the part that is most accessible to people who do not play guitars or synths or program drum machines. The further you get from the human and the closer you get to the machine, the less interesting it is going to be to either a casual reader (i.e. not a fan of that artist) or person-who-does-not-do-the-things-they-talk-about (i.e. a non-musician when talking to musicians.)

This interview happens to be two musicians who have 1) known each other a long time and 2) are highly interested in technical aspects of gear, so I guess that's why it went so far down that direction.

But there are other aspects of recording which are more relatable - the questions about *where* he records, rather than *what* he records, for example - because I'm always very interested in how a sense of place affects art and the creation of it. That tiny tidbit of him liking to record in his bedroom because he likes being able to muck about in the nude or in his y-fronts, that provides a sense of place and personality, which is more relatable. Things like, 'the Lodge' being a shed he has to go out with a flashlight to find, that provides more of a clue of isolation being important, of being cut off from the world and distractions.

The way one creates in one's bedroom is different from the way one creates in an artificial studio environment; the way one creates in a busy city centre is different from a shed up a mountain in (Cornwall/Scotland/wherever he's pretending to live at the moment). I suppose those things are more interesting to me, because they are about the bits of the process that I find salient.

It's the difference between the hardware and the software element.

I love reading about instruments and studios and stuff, and how hi-tech (machine) meets low-tech (people). I was always fascinated by tales of Aphex building his own synths (just like Kraftwerk and OMD and New Order did, albeit they did it from kits), or musicians buying fancy synths and either modding or breaking them or using them incorrectly. So when Aphex or Autechre name the stuff they use, I don't think of it as revealing trade secrets, because the dudes making and breaking and stuff essentially are the trade secrets. Reading about, say, Autechre using generative software but manipulating things in real time is really cool, just like reading the revelation that the Bomb Squad was playing or triggering a lot of the samples on those PE albums in real time, because the memory banks couldn't hold more than a few seconds of information. It's the human element that makes the stuff awesome and unique and weird, not the instruments or studios, though the humans needs those things to do what they do.

Here is Daniel Lanois remixing Tinariwen in real time in the back of a moving car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WB5vt3kyCE

See the reason why I love listening to RDJ scrolling through the presets on Buchla / futzing with his Serge is because now I'm hearing what modulars actually sound like? instead of just seeing their name on the title of a track that could've been made with anything

https://soundcloud.com/richarddjames/sets/syrobonkers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcBVSsmxT04

Maybe I'm missing 90% of this, because anytime anyone posts a Soundcloud link, it is, to me, basically the same as posting a blank page or a little red X.

I think, Josh, you're misunderstanding me because I feel like "how people use technology" is interesting, especially the ways in which the limitations of technology induce creativity and new forms of working.

But I'm just less and less interested in lists of gear and gear pr0n photographs and "lookit my fucken Buchla". (This may indeed just say something about me, and how much I used to fetishise that kind of stuff, before.) I think, if you are a musician or a composer, or at least fancy yourself as someone who could potentially be one, then there is more of an interest in the tools themselves, as opposed to ~ways in which people have used the tools~.

Like, after 20 years of RDJ saying next to nothing about his equipment and working methods, to suddenly go from that to an 80 page interview (not counting the photos! that is just the text) comprised of lists of gear. That's just a bit much. I think I preferred the mystery.

This may be entirely personal, that there's an element of "This is no longer relevant to my life; so STFU, I don't want to know, you're just showing off now." jealousy to it. I don't know. I guess everyone else disagrees with me and had no trouble reading all 82 pages without skipping any of it.

I guess it's also just personal, in that one of the massive turn-offs I found about that whole scene, was the amount of preponderance on gear, on equipment, on kit and clobber - to the utter exclusion of anything that might be read as "it's personal chemistry" or "it's emotion" or "it's the specific circumstances of that particular artist at that moment in time."

I think the mystery of his gear was always overblown/fun PR. I remember the same week I read something about him making all his own gear I borrowed a yamaha DX-27 from somebody and one of the factory patches was clearly prominently used on a Polygon Window track or something.

Well, I'd consider myself a 'musician', (I can vaguely remember), and lists of equipment would range from "What we have", "What we need", "What we don't need" and "What the hell is it?"

My "songwriter" head would be more about external sources, inspiration and so forth.

Having a massive discussion about tech/equip would be OK for five mins, tops.

The interview was interesting, and yeah I skipped loads. I don't really feel the need to see another one, unless he's got something else to say.

https://soundcloud.com/richarddjames

40+ new tracks on his soundcloud.

whaaat

lots o' modular bleeps and bloops

lots of abstract buchla jams. playing this simultaneously is making that new pink floyd album go down a lot easier.

ha, just got to the point in the interview where hecker forwards him a ludicrous french TV documentary about them installing the 4X at IRCAM. I hope this is a ten part interview, I wouldn't get bored

he's right that barely anyone used the Publison apart from Parmegiani on 'Creation du Monde' (those things were expensive) -- the only other person who went to town with it, specifically as a live instrument, was Carl Stone, on 'Dong Il Jong' & 'Shibucho' - http://www.sukothai.com/v.2/CSMusic.html

the tracks are in that interview that Branwell linked! (amazing btw)

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvX6nX1_P7vmBX6pwTjEHgV6FKSPuYZpJ

none of the tracks on syro were multi tracked into the computer , they were all recorded live to 2 track, which is kinda insane but the way i like it.

um wat

i mean i know he made his loops and patches beforehand and the tracks do sound kinda loose and live BUT STILL

the 3XLP is like $10.50 on US amazon right now

...only on Prime, currently out of stock :(

recording electronic music live to 2 track is really not a big deal, lots of people do it and at some point most people did it. It doesn't mean the parts aren't sequenced by any number of hardware sequencers and computers. Most of the structure can be defined in sequencers, changes can be improvised on the fly or pre-determined and played, and the mix is set then you just hit record and play it. Even glitchy bits that sound computer processed can be chopped up and edited in the computer or in a hardware sample...and triggered live with the sequence.

due to my era of recording I still can't quite understand that process. how do you orchestrate so many parts with multiple sequencers? how do you move parts around? try stacking different parts in different combinations? when you record everything to 2 track do you have to have all of your synths on, and sequenced live from some series of sequencers that are all synced up? I guess I'd understand this if I spent time with the hardware but it's so foreign to me.

It's like ableton live but with lots of MIDI and CV and DIN sync. Remember editing multitrack audio wasn't commonly feasible until the mid 90s. Some pretty impressive stuff was done before that. There are parts of Syro and other new stuff that I think is sonically influenced by sounds and structures that were derived from more current styles of computer processing, but that doesn't mean you need a computer to do it. And adding samplers adds a whole level of glitchery. Instead of triggering a sequence, you're trigging a sample of a measure of music for instance, and maybe you cut and pasted it in the sampler. You'll be able to do things similar to what you'd be doing editing audio in a computer. I mean, Public Enemy wasn't recorded to a computer and most of it wasn't even sequenced, people were triggering sample loops by hand.

I guess I understsand it in principle, but it's just very hard for me to imagine doing. I'm so used to hitting 'record' on a synth line (or anything really) and then working on it further from there (dragging it around, adding effects, chopping it up etc.).
some day I'll buy a sequencer and things will be illuminated.

I'm trying to get better to sticking with hardware because the more I work in the computer, the more lost I get, just recording track after track and bit after bit figuring I'll edit it down later and then getting stuck with tons of crap in my software (I use Digital Performer for what that's worth). I do my initial sequencing with an MPC1000 and am trying to do more of the structuring/"composition" in that and only transferring to computer (multi-track) at the end allowing me to do final edits. But just using an MPC can be limited, which is sometimes a pro. However there are other forms of sequencers that are more flexible or interesting, like the Circlon that's clearly all over Syro or stuff like the Elektron samplers/sequencers/drum machines. But also as mentioned, all the editing and structure may still be in the computer, but he may be using the computer as a non-digital sequencer, which is how most people did it for years and years. If you couldn't afford a Synclavier or whatever. Why 'record" a synth line, making it static audio to be edited, when you can sequence it, grab the notes, move them around, tweak them however, and still be able to tweak the sound as it's being played back during the final mix.

interesting geek talk here: http://www.reddit.com/r/synthesizers/comments/2fkavm/full_gear_list_used_on_new_aphex_twin_album/

I just like to record things then turn the synths off I guess. I use DP too btw.
I'm trying to change the way I work lately though, so a sequener might be my next step. But I guess this is "I Make Music" territory now. xpost

I actually started IMM and was the orig moderator but then I wasn't doing much with music for a while and stopped looking at it!

The way you work was a revelation to me because there were a few years when the last time I had worked on music, everything had to be sequenced, and now suddenly audio was possible, and I thought, why wouldn't you prefer to sequence it? That way you could quantize it, edit it, change the sound later etc. But I understood the benefit of just recording parts live, including non-quantized parts, and just the ability to record something that doesn't have midi or sync. I have an old track where almost all of the melody is just me tracking riffs on my Arp Solina, thinking I'd find one or two to use, and just basically editing out the really shitty ones and repeating the ones I like, but still you can hear me running through/tracking these solina riffs. https://soundcloud.com/newyorkendless/new-town-altered

I actually tend to do a lot of quantizing and adjustment of midi followed by endless tweaking of the patch I'm working with, but when I've gotten the midi and the sound "right" finally I'm usually eager to turn it into sound that can be chopped, filtered, and moved around (all the effects I've got these days are in the computer too, which isn't romantic but is cheap).

It *is* a problem sometimes when I've got one of those perfected and recorded lines and then weeks later I realize I want to change a few notes.

New Die Antwoord single is based around Ageispolis. It's a great song to sample but kinda wished someone else had used it.

Ugh, I mean, I know they're friends and all, but still... ugh.

Have gotten to the point with this album where I couldn't care less if it's "innovative" or whatever.