Experimental music.

  • Thread starter Thread starter valuehorse
  • Start date Start date
V

valuehorse

productions
i'm wondering if any artists on this forum are trying to achieve experimental sound much like animal collective or the liars. i've been trying to find more avant-garde composers to collaborate with, but with any kind of experimental art, it is hard to find people that step that far outside traditional boundaries. most people that listen to 'normal' music (i say 'normal' for lack of a better term) can't get into bands like these, but i couldn't be more drawn to them. i would appreciate input from anyone with advice on experimental techniques or other experimental bands i should listen to.

thanks.
 
oh shit

I went and listened to a bunch of songs by those bands.

That shit sounds like how the emperors new clothes look.

I think im going to make an album tonight. I am going to take a shit and mic my asshole. And it will be "progressive" because it pushes music to an unheard of concept that people dont normally take it. And also it will be "experimental" (which is truthfully just a nice way of saying terrible).

By the way, those "composers" arent outside of the box in the least. I listened to it. Its using the same basic underlying beats that all music uses. Also, the guy is singing the major scale half the time. Im sure the major scale has been used somewhere in music before. That music sounds like a bunch of wav files got opened at once and played at the same time. Is that "experimental"? Does being artistically experimental mean just doing things badly and without taste? Cause if thats what it means then why not juat make an album that is a frequency that makes human beings bleed from the ears instantly. Because if having no regard for symmentry and listenability is considered good art then the ultimate artist would just play nothing at all.

Ill tell you whats wrong with this world and why everyone stays dumb and we are in a musical and artistic dark age. Because somewhere along the line of life people realized that being "weird" got you attention. And then no longer was art about being noticable through ingenuity or genius of clever tricks or emotion, it became "how can i act different to stand out?" Now people are so bent on trying to be unique or the next big thing that they barely care if the idea itself is any good. Its hilarious and sad that people get caught up in trying to stand out SO BAD, that they need to be seen by the other humans around them as unique SO TERRIBLY, that they will believe lies to be truth.

That fucking music sounds like you accidentally opened two songs at once (bad songs by the way) and played them simultaneously. That is not progressive or experimental in practice or in theory. And its not even well written. If people want to sit and listen to terrible, easily made music made by complete amateurs thats fine by me, but dont call it something its not. And dont act like those people are onto something or some concept that other people just dont understand. Cause thats an "association" that people make with a person in society, not a "sound" or an "art". Stop listening for what type of person you want to be seen as in the music you listen to.

Jesus fucking christ people will eat shit and call it gourmet as long as they feel "special" or "unique" in doing so.

You know what will be truly progressive in this year of 2007 where everyones grandma has tattoos and you have to cut a dick off on screen in a movie to get peoples attention? JUST PLAIN BEING TALENTED. But fuck, why take the time to become skilled when there are a million associations you can attach your "art" to that dont require any actual skill or genius. Cant write a melody? Be in a really heavy screaming band. Cant write a song? Just start an "experimental" band where you record anything and layer it and tell people they just dont "get it" if they dont think its any good.

There is no arguing with bad taste though. Cause its like religion, no one wants to believe they are living a lie and have to rethink themselves. Its way easier for the human mind just to lean on the "faith" that they are right because it feels better.
 
hold on

Im sorry but that original post just makes me so sick i cant take it. So dude, in your life, at the grand old wise age of 19 have figured out what "stepping outside traditional boundaries" is in regard to music? OK please PLEASE list what musical devices are being employed in those songs that makes them experimental or different than "traditional music". Seriously, if there are places in the "composition" that actually break any ground other than just completely lacking regard to compositional symmetry in a sense other than just being sloppy for sloppinesses sake id LOVE for you to point them out. But be specific which shouldnt be hard for someone who knows so much about music at the grand old age of 19 that they are tired of boring old traditional composition techniques already and simply MUST move on to the higher and more noble form of music known as "experimental".

Your quote alone makes me want to puke.
 
Christ

By the way, there is no such thing as music or art "progressing". NO SUCH THING. Music doesnt progress like technology does. Neither does art. If you believe those things than you are an idiot and you will most likely fail your entire life as an artist and never know why. Music and art are to us as humans extensions of culture which is an adaptation of survival instinct.

Scientists know this. Biologists all know this. So when you cruise around acting as if you are onto some "new" "experimental" thing you make a fool out of yourself to anyone with a decent education or an honest brain.

Its the same frequencies, its the same counting (beats), and most importantly its the same receptor, the human brain... which hasnt changed since the days of cavemen and wont change for a millions of years.

There is no easy way out.
 
I am sorry that your first post here drew the barb of Good Friend – we are not all like that. He possesses such a sense superiority usually only allocated to the super confident coupled with the anger of someone dreadfully insecure that he should be admired as a paradox!

Experimental music is all about how far you want the experiment to go. At a more sonorous level you have the music of Frank Zappa and Capt. Beefcake and at a more crunch level you have the German industrial movement of the 70s that Kraftwerk immerged from and influenced countless ‘buzz saw’ metal bands.

The big division in experimentation is organic sound verses electrically created. A theory I once had explained to me said that you should think of the music as a sound-scape then you can apply any number of visual art theories. Think of a ‘street scene’ with snatches of a siren and clips of words – but nothing quite clear and you’ve got Impressionism in music.

Though not consider experimental, Phillip Glass makes outstand visual music and is well worth a listen. Obliviously Bowie is an amazing example of someone who has observed experimentation and brought it into the ‘main-stream’ – just miss out 82 to 92

In terms of techniques I think you should explore alternative scales and rhythms. Listen to radio plays and hear the way that sound is used to inform us about the environments and even how music is used in a soundtrack way.

If you are drawn to this style of music and feel passionate about it then pursue it with all your energy. Last years experimentation maybe this years top 10 and the extremes of any art form are constantly in dialogue – while you may find mainstream distasteful and boring – if you do what you want to do with your music you may go on to influence a whole swathe of musicians and add value to peoples lives.

Above all ignore the ‘ne’ersayers’
 
You ask about "bands", but it is probably worth looking at who has done what in the past also.

If you haven't already, maybe explore John Cage and Brian Eno.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor could be seen as experimental. Worth a listen.

I find a lot of the free improvisation stuff and Stockhausen too challenging (i.e. I don't like it), but some find it interesting.

The question you need to ask is what aspect of music do you want to experiment with.. new sounds? new forms? do away with rhythm? Do away with melody? (been done a lot .. Talking Heads played with it).

Don't worry about Good Friend. He generally only posts to attack. 19 isn't as far from 27 (his reported age) as he thinks... as he will know when he gets older himself.

Have fun exploring!
 
One of my favorites in this arena is Einsturzende Neubauten (Collapsing New Houses) from Berlin. Their earlier work can be pretty extreme and later releases are almost musical. I had the opportunity to see them live and it was an unforgettable experience. They really sounded great, even better than their recordings.

http://www.neubauten.org/

Some other interesting artists are:

Caberet Voltaire (early works)
Throbbing Gristle
SPK
Severed Heads (early works)
Test Dept.
Skinny Puppy
Zev (alot of banging metal)

I'm not sure if any of these are your flavor of experimental but they are all very good artists.
 
typical good friend posts.

he's all talk. don't listen.


i'm trying to get somewhere that's strange, but not easily accessible. more like joanna newsom or nick drake. i thing i want to get into more of a non diatonic version imogen heap, eric whitacre, bjork...

i haven't heard eric whitacre's eletronic stuff from paradise lost...

i think he's a modern classical guy stepping into contemporary. i like to think of myself as a contemporary guy stepping into modern classical. i still need to build on both. i'm just a progressive folk kid for now.
 
you can say

You can say what you want about me you fuckers, but im as right as shit and there is no denying.

Am i wrong to say that experimentation for experimentations sake is a waste? Especially when i doubt SINCERELY that this person knows even the normal tendencies of "traditional composition".

You fuckers make me sick. I repeatedly give ingenius advice that is both honest and to the point giving FACTUAL evidence from both the logical and the scientific standpoints and you think IM an idiot just because i am not praising mindsets and techniques that are in fact inferior and diluted.

Let me ask you this, geniuses, what is the experiment if you have not established the "norm"? If this person does NOT know how to put together even a simple pop song, how can they already be both tired of "traditional" m usic, and ready to push the limits of composition? Besides to say that experimental music is in ANY way superior or noble a cause than straight up typical boring predictable garbage radio friendly shit is a complete and total act of stupidity that you, in my mind, will never redeem yourself from. Since that sentence went on a little long im sure you are missing the point. The point is is that how can experimental music even be considered experimental when its always the same kinds of deviation? SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT. Just cause something is noisier than usual it becomes "experimental". Or if you mix all these scales in weird ways. Who gives a fuck? Why not just let a baby draw chords out of a hat? SERIOUSLY WHY CANT YOU ADULT HUMAN BEINGS SEE HOW EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A 2 MINUTE POP SONG THAT GOES C-Am-Dm-G7??!?!?

Like i said, people just want to feel different. But you may fool all the idiots but you dont fool me man. Draw your chords out of your hat. But dont ask for my respect. Cause its something anyone can do so get over yourself.

Do me a favor world. Step outside yourself. Step outside everything you think you know about music. Dude, if you cannot write a decent simple pop song, you wont be any better at being "experimental". It will merely be a gimmick that keeps people from being able to point out your amateur writing capabilities simply because you can always just go "oh well its experimental and not for all tastes". Thats the parachute you will ride your entire life as long as you rely on gimmicks to sell yourself.

Fuck any musician who cant see what music really is and confuses style with ability or level of artistry. Music is practically all the same except for how it is put together by the creator. And we live in a world of fucking morons trying to get a free ride with gimmicks alone. I dont care what you fuckers say about me im as right as shit about all of this. Only my way of explaining it aggravates you which makes it even more of a sociological experiment.

You may think im wrong, but i severely doubt youll be going home and eating cereal with fish bits in it. I also sincerely doubt youll just take your entire plate of food and blend it up into a shake and drink it. Fuck no you wont be doing that. But hey its experimental, some famous guy did it once, there are no rules. Blah blah blah.

Want some true advice dude? You want what no one else has the balls to say? Quit music. Its a fucking rat race of a scam of a life to lead and people are only out for themselves and everyone cheers their favorite team on and ignores and insults everyone elses team. Dont let anyone tell you its about art or any of that. "Art" is not a career in music. Dont confuse "art" with the life you have to lead to be a "musician". You will work and slave and waste your entire life to be as brilliant as you possibly can and some asshole will call your compositional opus a turd because he doesnt like the type of snare sound used on the track. You will slave and work and lose years of your life trying to be brilliant and succeed just to have some fat black dude who cant even spell get a number 1 single with only 8 words in it about how hell kill a nigga, and how he doesnt even give a fuck. You will see millions of girls scream their lungs out for talentless nobodies over a haircut. A HAIRCUT. Is a haircut music, dude? Doesnt make any sense does it? Youll spend your entire life making a big deal out of your "art" but no one else cares cause this is 2007 where everyone and their brother has a home studio and has a band and every single motherfucker you see can play guitar. And even if you happen to be some bizarre style of "experimental" that catches on well then what? Youll bee copied and ripped off so bad that people will forget that it was you and even start to backlash against you for starting a trend that by that point is seen as outdated and unhip. You may even be called "unexperimental" by some sperm who just bought his guitar a week ago just because you dont feel like kissing the general publics ass (which is their ego).

Give up dude. There is no art left. There is no scene anymore. Its just a bunch of dudes trying to get laid and then everyone copies what even remotely works to impress the people around them. Dont believe me? Think this is a retarded rant? Go the fuck down to guitar center and look at the talentless faces that walk through the door. Count them. Count how many of them look exactly like what kind of music they "write". Tell me if there are any hot chicks banging any old men just because they wrote "experimental" music. Count those faces. And then fucking count yourself as well.
 
you're a complete idiot.

would you rather have a trend that people think its cool to sound exactly the same? i'm glad people at least have the mindset of trying to be different, even if they totally suck and aren't all that different.

and you say experimentation is impossible? that all the same frequencies have been heard before... it's all just a bunch of squigly lines on my tape, or 1's and 0s in my computer.

not that the sound is creating a different overtone than ever before, that the amount that we're counting is no longer 4, that the allegory in the lyrics is totally original...etc.

if being different is impossible, then you're also bound by your ridiculous rule.

by your rule, you sound no different than anyone else, you are completely unoriginal, you are no better than the bands than you put down.

you make no sense.

when are you going to post a song, mr. self proclaimed genius?



if you're really that genius, there's no way for someone to copy you without putting just as much practice in. and by that time, people will see you as the original.
 
Last edited:
Good friend you are not

Good friend you are a self righteous supercilious little man. I offer my opinions on these forums to help, engage in mature debate and benefit from the collaboration – I do not expect to be called a ‘fucker’ and an ‘idiot’ – simply because you disagree with me.
I responded to one of your diatribes some weeks ago regarding your sense of superiority because you claim you criticism are valid because they are based on scientific fact!

You failed to address any of the points I made in that post because
1. You actually scientific knowledge is nil or something you gleaned from watching Discovery while in the mental ward
2. You use forums as a monologue because no-one in the mental home will listen to you and you actually do not know how to have a 2 way conversation
3. You’ve been taking your medication, since then but had a lapse on the weekend
4. All of the above

You are clearly mad but in the hope that there is something sane inside there I suggest you review my previous comments and get your facts right – before you use them as the basis to attack the opinions of others.

PM me if you want – though I think the public audience is part of your disorder so I lets move it to the Dragons Cave with the other crazies and not clutter up the forums of people who wish to develop.

The irony is that the human brain is evolving (scientific fact proven by fMRI in the last 12m) on a personal and collective level as we respond to environmental stimulus – but your lack of ability to evolve clearly proves your own point! Let me know what you want to do. It is easy to destroy it is harder to create.
 
How about

Steve Reich? His phasing technique and the whole idea process music is interesting. It could potentially melt your brain, though.

Marilyn Manson, believe it or not, dipped his hand into the old proverbial experimental warmwater... dish back in the early 90's. Smells Like Children is heavily multi-tracked and drug-fueled, but not much of it is extraordinary audio trail blazing. There's alot of more traditionally styled stuff, though there's almost always a good layer of effects and sound clips on his music. It's interesting.

Revolution 9 definitely.

Manson did a "cover" of Revolution 9, called Revelationn 9, but I've never gotten ahold of a CD or a tape, just heard some clips of it.
 
Last edited:
My how internet anonymity provides such a safe haven for closet sociopaths, bigots, racists and fakers. I'd love to see this argument reposted in the Hip-hop area of the forum since it obviously is aimed at that genre of TALENTED ARTISTS.

You will slave and work and lose years of your life trying to be brilliant and succeed just to have some fat black dude who cant even spell get a number 1 single with only 8 words in it about how hell kill a nigga, and how he doesnt even give a fuck.
Click to expand...

BTW it's "...*he'll* kill a nigga". Talk about spelling problems... :eek:

Anyway enough time wasted on negativity. I would like to direct your attention to a few of my favorite experimental artists that did manage to become famous and whos talent nobody in their right mind would dispute.
Herbie Hancock
The Art of Noise
Danny Elfman
David Burne
Peter Gabriel
David Bowie
The Beatles
Devo
Queen
The Police
The Flaming Lips
The Cars
Kate Bush
Rush
John Cage
Gary Numan
John Foxx

At various times each of the above dabbled with great success in experimental types of music and some of them are still at it. They at times were massively famous and some still are that today. If you can hold a candle to any of them then you can only be one of those named in this list because their talent is extraordinary and beyond the reach of most.

Each of these artists are a huge source of inspiration for anybody pursuing experimental music. While most of them produced more pop or Jazz than experimental, their more obscure works are no less monumental.
 
Last edited:
Many Thanks

Thank you all for your extremely helpful advice.

With the exception of good friend, I have gained considerable insight from your posts. I guess he has a thing or two to learn about social interaction. Even a 19 year old knows that.
 
holy shit

Here is what the original poster mailed me through private message:

"welcome to the real world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow,
Apparently you missed my question completely. Instead you felt it necessary to attack my age and artistic taste. Here is a task for you, although you might have to step outside your usual boundaries and actually read a book:

Open an art history book,

study how art has progressed since the Rennaissance,

and understand that art DOES in fact evolve along with technology, culture, and basically every other human and animal trait that exists in nature.

I didn't make a post so some stuck up ignoramus could try to talk like he knows a damn thing. I am interested in serious artists. Here's a few albums you may have heard of that were defined as experimental for their time: Sgt. Pepper (Beatles), Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd), any Frank Zappa album. You really don't think that music goes through periodic trends like painting does?? How do you think the blues developed, or rock and roll, or rap, or punk, or whatever the hell you listen to that you think is so much better? You certainly don't talk like you're 27. Pull your head out of your ass."

---------------------------

Now before my fucking head explodes let me calm myself and humiliate this person without vomiting on my desk.

ART DOES NOT EVOLVE THATS THE MOST RETARDED THING IVE EVER HEARD. FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!! Who the fuck is so retarded that they dont understand this concept? Its a biological fact. Evolution is when something changes for the better due to selective pressures. Art doesnt improve or evolve because art is judged as something that human emotions respond to. You get sad over a sad song. You get angry over an angry song. And on and on. ART IS HUMAN RESPONSE TO EPITOMIZED EMOTIONS. Love, fear, jealousy, hatred, etc. Someone paints a picture that feels sad and you feel sad looking at it because the artist has found his way of depicting sadness and you feel sad. So by that logic, there is no "evolution" to art. IT CANNOT EVOLVE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO NEW EMOTIONS. It can change culturally, it can change facetiously, but it does not evolve (become more advanced).

People are so fucking ass backwards about what art is taht all they can see is the typical bullshit and stock beliefs about it and its sickening. See this kid, totally convinced that art actually changes over time. That newer, better emotions are "discovered" by artists. But whats funny is that that is lifes little trick. People believe that THEY are onto something that no one else knows. OR that THEY are in some kind of super modern time that somehow is wiser than all previous times. And thats just bullshit man. Stop thinking of music as "styles" unless you are just referring to the times when certain kinds of music became popular either through commercialization or profit gaining. That is not art. Thats is just a part of life that goes along with art. It is not art itself.

Sorry buddy. There is no new "love". There is no new "hate". There is no new nothing. You are no better than the people who lived in caves. The human brain HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE CAVEMAN DAYS. Same emotions. Same capacity for memory and affection. Same capacity for wonder, greed, etc.
Now this is biologically proven by fucking scientists. Do you know what "biology" is? Biologists study what is real, not what might be real. They look inside and build off of proven facts. Biology is ever correcting itself, taking only what has been proven through extensive controlled studies for as far back as science has existed. Biology is not concerned with fake evidence or delusional self centered approach to discovery.

To think that this kid actually believes he is standing on previous generations experience like it may as well have been his own, and now hes going to take it one step further then they ever could have in their "simpler times" MAKES ME WANT TO THROW UP. And by doing what? Making it noisier? Making it louder? Making it more "complex"? What a fucking joke. You are actually de evolving my friend. Imagine if John had turned to Paul and said "hey, i cant think of a good melody, lets just make it loud and obnoxious and then well say that youre just not hip enough to like it if people think it sucks". Fuck no man. They WROTE SONGS. They did the work. Hard work. You think you can just hear their record and you just "gain" their knowledge and apply it to modern "evolved" mentality? Good luck dude, GOOD LUCK.

You know, i always hear people say, what about when people started painting abstract paintings and everyone wanted to ban it but now they are classics. But heres the thing, those paintings were different than the expected norm and what was in style. It was culture shock for some probably. You have to remember that culture affects people deeply and they like to be comfortable. But as ART, abstract paintings were no different than the precise realism they were being compared to. They were only exploring a new method of expressing the same emotions. Art WAS NOT evolving just because people were shocked by how different it was in method than what was at the time popular. Also, take this into consideration, not all abstract paintings are considered classics. Not all of them are equal. Some no one cares to remember. Are those still "better" or more "evolved" than the realism that they culturally eclipsed for a time? By your evolution of art logic any shitty abstract painting is more advanced and better art than the classic realist paintings. Do you see how dumb that logic seems when its stated properly? If you cant follow logic and thought process this deeply than you need to start using your brain to asses what your real feelings are and what is real truth and not what you want to feel in your own little self centered teenage world. And dont think i dont know what kind of person you are cause i see you everyday down at the mall trying to look cool so i cant be fooled. If you cant take honesty at this level than you will always struggle to make any art in any style.

Thats why my advice is the only helpful advice youve probably ever gotten dude. If you are crying on a forum about how to write a song than your problem is bigger and deeper than wether something is "experimental" or not. Fuck dude, try to write a regular old normal song and see if it stacks up first before assuming you are some kind of advanced being who knows everything and needs to already "experiment". Sad fact is buddy that 99 percent of "experimentalists" are just untalented people without much to say but they really want to have SOMETHING to say so they arent a tiny little bug in the giant world. But man, we are all tiny bugs and no song will truly make you or your life better experimental or otherwise.

Im not against noisy music or atonal music or experimentation, but something makes me sick when dudes act superior about something that they elected to be a part of, rather than something they are actually skilled at. Everything about your post and your little tag line screams that you want the world to think something about you that if it were true you wouldnt need to find anyone to collaborate with. Already fed up with boring old shit huh? Try making some good traditional songs first and see how "easy" it is before you "evolve".

Ever heard the phrase "putting the cart before the horse"?
 
ha

By the way i think its hil-fucking-larious that people refer to "experimental" as something that was different stylistically from the other mainstream music that was out when it came out. So any seemingly new type of sound or style, even borrowed (such as the beatles stealing old music hall styles etc. on Sgt Pepper) is an "experiment"?

Fucking idiots.

You know, if i went to a pygmy village and played "Happy Birthday To You" on an electric guitar, something theyd never seen and heard before, they think it was from mars. Theyd think i invented experimentation with sound. And yet, my actual personal experiment was nothing. I simply learned someone elses song. And yet they would believe i was the source because they wouldnt know better. The same applies to almost all people and especially some here on this board.

The Flaming Lips are a great band ive liked them since the early 90s. But to say that they prove a point towards your argument is retarded. They sounded like complete shit until they started to steal ideas. When they were super experimental they were horrible in the early early days. Shitty musicianship="experimentation". Once they got a few talented members in the songs were ten times better. But at the same time the experimental element was diminished. The early 90s records relied HEAVILY on borrowed sounds that when combined with their "charm" gave them appeal. But without those elements it would have been nothing. Then as far as their new stuff its just more borrowed elements, only different ones than before.

So wheres the "experiment"? In stealing others ideas and rearranging them? Well in a monkee see monkee do world than EVERYTHING is therefore an experiment. All music is experimental if thats your belief. So that just proves my initial point. There is no such thing and its really just people lame way of purposely acting like an outsider because they lack the talent or skill to make their mark the hard way, through ingenuity and inspiration.
 
ugh

Im done with this shit, say what you want about me and go on writing terrible shit forever with exotic genre names to describe the lie the audience is supposed to tell themselves so they believe they actually like it and it isnt just another cultural scam like all the other millions of cultural scams that are created and then crucified every hour of every day.
 
A few points.

His signature is a quote from a Bjork song. It says nothing more. The rest is your projection.

Art is a means of evoking emotion and those emotions don't change. I agree. Experimentation is about finding new means to do that. Nothing wrong with that at all. It does not imply finding new emotions.. and nobody claims it does.

You know nothing of the poster. You don't know whether he has written songs and, if he has, how good they were.

Do you know what "facetiously" means?

Art did change over time. The use of perspective is a good example. This does not mean that more recent art is "better" .. a lot of older art is magnificent. However, new techniques did become available to the artist's palette. A parallel with music is reasonable.

Your argument is an elaborate straw man. I can't tell whether it is knowingly so or not.

What on earth made you so angry? You are a young man, and I would hope that you would have more pleasurable ways of spending your time than attacking random people on an internet forum.

Lastly, experimentation can be useful to many people as a learning strategy. On it's own, it is not the most efficient strategy, but it can be useful combined with other strategies. If someone wishes to experiment, why not? We are all still learning, after all. If not, it is because we choose not to learn any more. I am not convinced that would be a good decision.
 
music has a method to it. a method that can be critiqued, built from, and changed. to deny evolution of its complexity from monophonic voice consisiting of only a few notes, to harmony, to polyphony, to different chord structure..etc.. is ridiculous

there's emotion in music. there's method in music. it's a fuse of the two. not just one on its own
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top