plaid are the wynton marsalis of IDM

https://warp.net/editorial/what-makes-plaid

Andy: We've always said we're not experimental musicians but we've been lumped into that category because we started when it was an experimental form: everyone was hearing these electronic sounds for the first time. Now people expect revolutionary sounds every couple of years, based on what happened back then, but that's just not possible.

...because if there's one message that you want to get from artists, of all people, it's "that's just not possible"

We're about the craft of what we do more than about artistic manifestos, I think. We're definitely not about reinventing ourselves for every project - it's more about understanding our tools and the processes of composition, and refining the processes every time. We definitely have an affinity to the Japanese approach, where artists are proud to repeat and refine their processes. We're very happy to make "another Plaid record", and if we're about anything it's about that refinement of the craft. If we've done something that satisfies us, it may or may not work in the world, but we can feel happy that it's honest.

a good way to justify this approach might be to look at what the best albums in Plaid's area of music are. if a lot of these albums were made by older artists who spent decades polishing their craft rather than reinventing themselves, then I'd say this is a solid defense. evidence that lifelong repetition and refinement pays off with this kind of thing. except--
https://www.dummymag.com/10-best/10-best-warp-albums-plaid/
notice how all but 2 of these albums were made by people in their twenties. (also, all were younger than plaid currently are, and many were in their very early twenties.) and warp itself has been around for 30 years now--it's not like there's a shortage of warp material from more "refined" to choose from. I'm not sure why Plaid think "the Japanese approach" is such a good idea for them when they evidently don't think it's worked for anyone around them.

underlying my (not real) annoyance with their answers is the fact that 100% of the time I see someone whinging about newer autechre, they are a diehard plaid fan. "um, it's very 'experimental' and technically impressive and all but it's unlistenable, there's no melody. it's the emperor's new clothes. you're just listening to it to look smart." even the band themselves do the exact same thing in the 10 best albums link above.

what I'm getting at is that maybe you could invert the usual accusations thrown at autechre at plaid. maybe plaid and their fans don't actually enjoy their newer music. they just hear it and think, "ah, this is proper music with real melodies, not like that awful racket autechre are making these days."

the past wasn't good enough

a while ago someone on dissensus mentioned a quote from some guy in the incredible string band. it was something like "there was a period in the 60s where we lived in the woods and i genuinely thought that money wouldn't be a thing in like six months."

before that i listened to a recording of an AMM performance from around the same time, then to a few minutes of a more recent recording of theirs. the difference was striking. maybe it's not fair to compare them, since the one from the 60s was the group at their most cacophonous, and in the later one they were certainly aiming for something different: quieter and more delicate. but still, there was a sickeningly 'mature' quality to the second one. you could tell that by its time they had decided that they had to draw from not just the new, but also temper it with the timeless. but the first performance was interesting BETTER because it was ruder, more visionary, seeming to announce "your conception of music will be completely different in six months, get with it!"

in the 90s sean booth said that music in 10 years would sound completely different from how it did then (/does now). "i was young and naive, what can i say."

anyways these kinds of sentiments are very inspiring, i think. sure, it's easy to fall back on the narrative loved by middle-aged (well old now) classics-western-cannon types that there wasn't anything particularly special about these eras (other than how delusional they were!) and the quotes above are just myopia: people buying too hard into the hype and fads of their times--being so arrogant as to assume that they could leave mozart or whatever--the Timeless--behind. basically the story of icarus, except instead of the sun it's the new. (it's been 100 years now and the postman still isn't whistling shoenberg!) a lot of the time i side with this boringly reasonable take.

but on some level, i really want to think that even if these magical eras didn't fully make good on their promises, nevertheless, new forms, sounds, etc. will come along / be discovered at some point that will blow everything before (everything that we know) out of the water. so we should explore the past, by all means--but keep looking forward too. cause maybe the future holds possibilities so revelatory that they'll BTFO everything we've known and done. sure it's absurdly optimistic... but wouldn't that be cool?

Note: This user has not visited Rate Your Music in the past 60 days

well obviously i've sort of lost interest in this blog for the time being, but i have a lot of "good" ideas that I'd like to develop at some point

- "Balancing" Experimentation and Accessibility is Stupid
- is interpretation bullshit?  (this one's important, probably 1st priority) 
- aesthetic possibilities unlocked by recorded music
- weight of the 20th century culture archive
- yearning for the algorhithmic

that's probably enough for now. actually i might do one of these in the next few days. lots of arguments grounded in FACTS and LOGIC incoming

edit: fuck it, will probably wait until summer after all 

you just activated my trap card