Saligia - Greed
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1955 posts since 5 Sep, 2003 from Denmark
Greed is now finished in collaboration by JackR and me.
-
- KVRAF
- 3588 posts since 13 May, 2004 from montreal
Got your email about this - I'll comment in more detail via email. Many interesting things going on in the background (those swelling noise bursts are beautiful), but I'm not crazy about the synth/drums/guitar elements. Take that stuff out and it'd be perfect. As it is, it's much less powerful than your recent Respirator tracks, which are just about the most intriguing music I've heard on this forum.
Sorry if this sounds a little harsh! It's not intended to be.
Sorry if this sounds a little harsh! It's not intended to be.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
I'm of two minds on this.
The track, and the guitar especially (is that James Bond?), seems incongruent with the sound of the remainder of the SALIGIA project, which ultimately is a collection of semi-dissonant mood pieces (I have no quarrel with the drums).
But then I listened a second time thinking only of the Greed theme. It all seems appropriate, the James Bond guitar sort smacks of high gloss photo shoots on the Riviera. The coins are maybe a bit too on the nose, though.
I agree with James, this does seem to be less adventurous than your recent work (which might mean that it will be your most well-received by others). It's a good track, but SALIGIA is "a seven deadly sins project" where as this track maybe feels like its from "a second seven deadly sins project."
The track, and the guitar especially (is that James Bond?), seems incongruent with the sound of the remainder of the SALIGIA project, which ultimately is a collection of semi-dissonant mood pieces (I have no quarrel with the drums).
But then I listened a second time thinking only of the Greed theme. It all seems appropriate, the James Bond guitar sort smacks of high gloss photo shoots on the Riviera. The coins are maybe a bit too on the nose, though.
I agree with James, this does seem to be less adventurous than your recent work (which might mean that it will be your most well-received by others). It's a good track, but SALIGIA is "a seven deadly sins project" where as this track maybe feels like its from "a second seven deadly sins project."
-
- KVRian
- 882 posts since 23 Apr, 2004
This track is great. It has a really greasy slick feel to it, kind of lulls you into thinking everything is ok, then the noise parts come in and out.
It really all fits together well, and I think that SALIGIA is far more than just noisescapes, but a beautifully eclectic mix depicting how people themselves translate their own experiences with the sin (thats why we each got selected, remember?). In this case there is this sound of allure interspersed with the darker down side, its great. The track :10: and I did (which also got shit on) was a straight forward reflection of the frustration of wanting to be someone else, to have what I/we can't touch...sometimes even wanting to be one of you, or at least yearning for approval.
Music doesn't always have to be about staying outside of "commercial" acceptance. It is about communicating. No method should be considered invalid, whether it is radio static and wind-up toys, or 4 on the floor dance. If it communicates what is inside you, and is genuine and honest, then there is no reason to try to be anything other than yourself.
By building up these elitist walls and rules of what is commercially acceptable as guidelines to avoid, you are boxing in your artform just as much as full time commercial producers...There are no rules, any method can be applied...
i love noise - f**k Russolo
It really all fits together well, and I think that SALIGIA is far more than just noisescapes, but a beautifully eclectic mix depicting how people themselves translate their own experiences with the sin (thats why we each got selected, remember?). In this case there is this sound of allure interspersed with the darker down side, its great. The track :10: and I did (which also got shit on) was a straight forward reflection of the frustration of wanting to be someone else, to have what I/we can't touch...sometimes even wanting to be one of you, or at least yearning for approval.
Music doesn't always have to be about staying outside of "commercial" acceptance. It is about communicating. No method should be considered invalid, whether it is radio static and wind-up toys, or 4 on the floor dance. If it communicates what is inside you, and is genuine and honest, then there is no reason to try to be anything other than yourself.
By building up these elitist walls and rules of what is commercially acceptable as guidelines to avoid, you are boxing in your artform just as much as full time commercial producers...There are no rules, any method can be applied...
i love noise - f**k Russolo
-
- KVRian
- 882 posts since 23 Apr, 2004
That said, I do agree about the coin sounds...BUT that's just a personal observation, and not a statement about the validity of this piece of art.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
Point taken, and I don't want to be a noise fascist of any sort. I think several of the SALIGIA bits don't fall in to the noisescape niche and still have managed to survive Don's cut.xerocreep wrote:It really all fits together well, and I think that SALIGIA is far more than just noisescapes, but a beautifully eclectic mix depicting how people themselves translate their own experiences with the sin (thats why we each got selected, remember?).
But I think the characterization of "commercial sounding" tends to be shorthand more for "soulless renditions of staid musical forms, stripped by corporate committee of any challenge and identity in order to be more palatable to the undiscerning consumerist public," which doesn't quite roll off the tongue now, does it?
Greed is a tough one, as it should reflect that all-consuming presence of the "commercial sound," but if it is intended to be criticism, it must do so without becoming its enemy.
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
Good observation, Steve.shamann wrote:Greed is a tough one, as it should reflect that all-consuming presence of the "commercial sound," but if it is intended to be criticism, it must do so without becoming its enemy.
-
- KVRian
- 882 posts since 23 Apr, 2004
I know, and I most assuredly don't fault the observation. But being on the receiving end of that particular observation, I have had to really look closely at what I do, and why. Of course, i can only assume how applicable my reasoning is to this situation, but feel compelled to state my mind none-the-less.shamann wrote:But I think the characterization of "commercial sounding" tends to be shorthand more for "soulless renditions of staid musical forms, stripped by corporate committee of any challenge and identity in order to be more palatable to the undiscerning consumerist public," which doesn't quite roll off the tongue now, does it?
It seems to me that most "soulless renditions of staid musical form, stripped by corporate committee of any challenge and identity in order to be more palatable to the undiscerning consumerist public" began with people who felt passionatley about their art, and there are still those who do it with passion. It doesn't always need to be fully confrontational to be art...(although to be fair, I had found myself on the opposing side of this argument with Rurik once) I am in no way saying that there is no such thing as consumer directed music-as-product. But I am saying, that as long as your music is true to you and you are actually making it there is no reason that it should be seen as any less valid than any other form of music. I would have no quarrell with any of these statements about commercialism if they were couched in a way that avoided the assumption that the pieces in question were any less valid as a whole than any other. In essence, if they were stated as a form of personal oppinion.
But, each song is supposed to be the interpretation by the artisits themsleves based on their own experiences with the subject. How can these guidelines have any relevance on someones personal experience. Who are we to say what greed should sound like? We know what it would sound like to us.shamann wrote:Greed is a tough one, as it should reflect that all-consuming presence of the "commercial sound," but if it is intended to be criticism, it must do so without becoming its enemy.
Further more, the general opinion of what is a soulless commercial sound around these parts is getting more inclusive everyday. I mean, f**k, I make music that maybe a whole 5 more people would listen to than just straight noise. This Greed track is waaaay off the radar of anything actually charting. It would be stripped of soul if it was created with the intention fo selling rather than communicating.
Noise and ambient soundscapes have been stripped of meaning and context by movies, video games, and commercials for years now, are they really still anymore valid than disco? f**king Wolf Eyes gets a record contract and plays Coachella, they make the same wall of white noise as every other noise artist, are they more commercial now?
Its all just music and is subject to individual interpretation by everyone who listens to it. Of course this means I respect your opinions as well and am not saying mine is the only correct viewpoint here either.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
Call me crazy, but I think a project about the seven deadly sins implies from the outset that you recognize a degree of filth in the behaviour represented in those concepts (it's not the seven lovely fuzzies for a reason). Even if it is a celebration of that filth (Hooray for Greed!), it would require recognition. Recognition requires awareness, but that which just feels right isn't about awareness, it is about passive acceptance. There's a difference in rejoicing in greed and being greedy, for example, subtle as it may be.
As for how the artist feels, that can't be conveyed in song, no matter how hard you try (if you don't believe me, prove me otherwise). Art is what the artist does, feeling only exists in the creation and reception, but neither appear directly in the physical thing, because like my greed statement, feeling and the observation of feeling are two different things. I just don't believe that all art has equal merit on every level (on some levels, sure), because, for instance, I'm sure Nickelback are quite pleased with their work, but it is still a perfunctory burlesque.
(BTW, thanks for bringing this to us Thomas and Jack, this is getting interesting, how art should be received. A succes for you so far.)
As for how the artist feels, that can't be conveyed in song, no matter how hard you try (if you don't believe me, prove me otherwise). Art is what the artist does, feeling only exists in the creation and reception, but neither appear directly in the physical thing, because like my greed statement, feeling and the observation of feeling are two different things. I just don't believe that all art has equal merit on every level (on some levels, sure), because, for instance, I'm sure Nickelback are quite pleased with their work, but it is still a perfunctory burlesque.
(BTW, thanks for bringing this to us Thomas and Jack, this is getting interesting, how art should be received. A succes for you so far.)
-
- KVRAF
- 3588 posts since 13 May, 2004 from montreal
Has nothing to do with 'soullessness' or 'commerciality' (this piece is certainly not guilty on that count) - I just thought the synth/guitar/rhythm elements were unimaginative.
Thomas is possibly the most inventive and individualistic-sounding composer on this board, as his posts have repeatedly demonstrated, and this piece is, IMO, weakened by its more generic components. If those elements were intended ironically, the presentation doesn't make it clear enough. It's not a question of noise vs. pop here, it's more a question of distinct and idiosyncratic approaches being 'softened' by unnecessary compromise - it's handmade vs paint-by numbers. Doesn't matter how 'noisy' it is - that's an almost totally irrelevant surface feature in any music (INCLUDING noise music) - what matters is how hard it hits the mind/heart/body.
Anyway Thomas has been in touch, and didn't have a problem with my comments, so sorry to everyone else if I inadvertantly opened a can of worms.
Thomas is possibly the most inventive and individualistic-sounding composer on this board, as his posts have repeatedly demonstrated, and this piece is, IMO, weakened by its more generic components. If those elements were intended ironically, the presentation doesn't make it clear enough. It's not a question of noise vs. pop here, it's more a question of distinct and idiosyncratic approaches being 'softened' by unnecessary compromise - it's handmade vs paint-by numbers. Doesn't matter how 'noisy' it is - that's an almost totally irrelevant surface feature in any music (INCLUDING noise music) - what matters is how hard it hits the mind/heart/body.
Anyway Thomas has been in touch, and didn't have a problem with my comments, so sorry to everyone else if I inadvertantly opened a can of worms.
-
- KVRian
- 882 posts since 23 Apr, 2004
i don't know. i give up.
still a good track, sorry for f**king up your post Thomas and Jack.
still a good track, sorry for f**king up your post Thomas and Jack.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
Oh come on, why is controversy something to be avoided? Isn't that part of why we all make the sounds we make?xerocreep wrote:i don't know. i give up.
still a good track, sorry for fkucing up your post Thomas and Jack.
Thomas has never struck me as a wilting flower, I think some of his works have shown he's up for challenge. Thomas mentioned in an Audioshot post that the Music Cafe was feeling a bit less inspiring than it once was, isn't lively debate a step closer to making it better?
The best thread I ever had contained several folk saying "I don't get it, I think it sucks."
