Ambient Music - I'm right a piece(may become a small book) about it. Any source suggestions?

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
SODDI wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:There's a nice documentary on Amazon Prime right now (or was as of last week) about Brian Eno. It's definitely worth the watch, great background material.

https://www.amazon.com/Brian-Eno-1971-1 ... B00DY1FW82
I don't think he means THAT kind of ambient music. They never do.
I'm not following you. I assumed that OP was writing an article or paper and would want some historical input. What kind of "ambient music" are "they" talking about then?
"In England and Europe, we have this huge music called ambient - ambient techno, ambient house, ambient hip-hop, ambient this, ambient that." Brian Eno.

I'd love to have a good discussion about ambient music, but the roots are basically ancient history and no one wants to hear that. Terry Riley's "In C" anyone?

IMHO, the very first Eno "ambient" recording is "No Pussyfooting" by Robert Fripp and Brian Eno. It is a recording based on process - an aesthetic Eno has pursued to this day, with his "generative" music being the latest incarnation (and only available to iPhone users.)

Image

Post

slipstick wrote:
SODDI wrote:That should be "I'm WRITING a piece ABOUT IT THAT MAY become a small book."
You don't meet many writers who can't spell write. But maybe English is a second language?
His profile says USA. And I used to be a book editor and sometimes can't control myself.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:Yeah, what ARE her ideas exactly? This sort of thing induces a bit of eye-rolling from me. It just comes across as way too many words to say not much at all.

Seriously, what do people get out of this?

http://ciufo.org/classes/ae_sp14/readin ... _intro.pdf

Here's a video, if you don't like to read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QHfOuRrJB8
Self important intellectual gobbledegook

Post

SODDI wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
SODDI wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:There's a nice documentary on Amazon Prime right now (or was as of last week) about Brian Eno. It's definitely worth the watch, great background material.

https://www.amazon.com/Brian-Eno-1971-1 ... B00DY1FW82
I don't think he means THAT kind of ambient music. They never do.
I'm not following you. I assumed that OP was writing an article or paper and would want some historical input. What kind of "ambient music" are "they" talking about then?
"In England and Europe, we have this huge music called ambient - ambient techno, ambient house, ambient hip-hop, ambient this, ambient that." Brian Eno.

I'd love to have a good discussion about ambient music, but the roots are basically ancient history and no one wants to hear that. Terry Riley's "In C" anyone?

IMHO, the very first Eno "ambient" recording is "No Pussyfooting" by Robert Fripp and Brian Eno. It is a recording based on process - an aesthetic Eno has pursued to this day, with his "generative" music being the latest incarnation (and only available to iPhone users.)

Image
Sure, much of that is discussed in that documentary. I just assumed that anyone writing a paper or book would be interested in at least some of that history and how the word "ambient" came to refer to a style and how that style emerged from Eno's experiences.

I think that part of the problem with discussing the roots of anything is that it often becomes hagiography. I like Eno's MO, and respect how he was able to create a career for himself, but, I'm not all that impressed with his own ideas about process, per se. Nor do I really like most of his music.

The thought of paying someone $30 for a generative app kind of makes me laugh and at the same time wonder if there's actually a market for generative music presented in this way? My more rational self feels that, probably not, unless you're Brian Eno. So, good for him, and solid eye roll at the same time.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:Yeah, what ARE her ideas exactly? This sort of thing induces a bit of eye-rolling from me. It just comes across as way too many words to say not much at all.

Seriously, what do people get out of this?

http://ciufo.org/classes/ae_sp14/readin ... _intro.pdf
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really know the deep listening stuff was so new-agey. I knew she was into Buddhism (or its 'Western esotericism' analog at least) and meditation, but wasn't really aware of just how conflated they were for her. It's something I've only read about third-hand through a musicology rather than spiritual lens. I guess there's a lot of goodwill there due to her strong musical work.

I'd always largely conflated deep listening with Schaeffer's ideas about 'reduced listening'. Trying to ignore the symbolic or associative baggage that comes with sound (especially if we know what produced it) and listening to it purely 'in itself', independent of its cause. The object doesn't produce the sound, the sound is the object and its source an irrelevance.

Post

cron wrote:I'd always largely conflated deep listening with Schaeffer's ideas about 'reduced listening'. Trying to ignore the symbolic or associative baggage that comes with sound (especially if we know what produced it) and listening to it purely 'in itself', independent of its cause. The object doesn't produce the sound, the sound is the object and its source an irrelevance.
Well that's a bit more interesting.

Post

cron wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:Yeah, what ARE her ideas exactly? This sort of thing induces a bit of eye-rolling from me. It just comes across as way too many words to say not much at all.

Seriously, what do people get out of this?

http://ciufo.org/classes/ae_sp14/readin ... _intro.pdf
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really know the deep listening stuff was so new-agey. I knew she was into Buddhism (or its 'Western esotericism' analog at least) and meditation, but wasn't really aware of just how conflated they were for her. It's something I've only read about third-hand through a musicology rather than spiritual lens. I guess there's a lot of goodwill there due to her strong musical work.

I'd always largely conflated deep listening with Schaeffer's ideas about 'reduced listening'. Trying to ignore the symbolic or associative baggage that comes with sound (especially if we know what produced it) and listening to it purely 'in itself', independent of its cause. The object doesn't produce the sound, the sound is the object and its source an irrelevance.
so in essence, "Deep Listening" is just [ehem]... actually listening?

Post

sqigls wrote:so in essence, "Deep Listening" is just [ehem]... actually listening?
It's MINDFUL listening. A Zen Buddhist concept that is really dumb when applied to listening to music.

I think I'm gonna puke.

Just to bring it around to the subject, ambient music is supposed to be played at volumes just above the threshold of perception. So it's essentially designed for unfocused listening. ABSENT-MINDED listening.

Post

So here we go. Here's Eno talking about some very, IMO, trivial process elements with respect to his music and the interviewer wants everyone to know that he thinks that Eno is a "scientist", in fact, a "quantum scientist", whatever the f**k that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqHKX4BDJ1Q

For anyone with a math or a computer science background who comes to music, this is an obvious approach to making music and what Eno is doing here is laughably simple. The point being, I can see why there's not much interest in this when people talk about ambient.

I give credit to Eno for working in this way when it wasn't generally accepted, and you could even say that he was groundbreaking in making that so, however, that doesn't make his processes any more interesting today.

I think that in many cases the alternative ambient genres are doing much more interesting stuff than either the academics or the "stars" are doing. Had Eno not been Roxy Music, I don't think that we would know who he is at all. I do believe that someone else would have developed ideas for ambient music, however.

There we go, that should ruffle some feathers, we're going to have a conversation now, amiright?

Post

SODDI wrote:
sqigls wrote:so in essence, "Deep Listening" is just [ehem]... actually listening?
It's MINDFUL listening. A Zen Buddhist concept that is really dumb when applied to listening to music.

I think I'm gonna puke.

Just to bring it around to the subject, ambient music is supposed to be played at volumes just above the threshold of perception. So it's essentially designed for unfocused listening. ABSENT-MINDED listening.
i think it's about right, i mean that ambient music should be kind of unfocussed music. I mean in order for it to be a part of the general ambience, it kind of must become a part of the furniture. When it starts to become more than the furniture, or when it begins to stand out, then i guess it probably deserves another title... but i don't really give a shit aside from being able to describe music to people in a situation where i'm unable to play it for them. I guess, i feel that if you're gonna use a word to label music, it should be at least semi-related to the meaning of the word. "Future Bass", now what's THAT all about!?
Anyways, i try to be wary when using the word ambient, unless I know it fits into the 'general ambience' kind of bracket... all the other stuff is often just smeared "chill" music :P

Post

btw, i personally think the stuff like the Barry Truax piece on page 1, is just noodling with equipment. It's not music, and it's certainly not "ambient", unless you're sitting in the lobby at Satan's dental clinic... i would go so far as to just say - it's shite.

Post

sqigls wrote:btw, i personally think the stuff like the Barry Truax piece on page 1, is just noodling with equipment. It's not music, and it's certainly not "ambient", unless you're sitting in the lobby at Satan's dental clinic... i would go so far as to just say - it's shite.
To be fair, that wasn't quite so easy to do in 1986. I wouldn't listen to that, unless, it was one of my own pieces, then I would listen to it all the time.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:So here we go. Here's Eno talking about some very, IMO, trivial process elements with respect to his music and the interviewer wants everyone to know that he thinks that Eno is a "scientist", in fact, a "quantum scientist", whatever the f**k that is.

For anyone with a math or a computer science background who comes to music, this is an obvious approach to making music and what Eno is doing here is laughably simple. The point being, I can see why there's not much interest in this when people talk about ambient.

I give credit to Eno for working in this way when it wasn't generally accepted, and you could even say that he was groundbreaking in making that so, however, that doesn't make his processes any more interesting today.

I think that in many cases the alternative ambient genres are doing much more interesting stuff than either the academics or the "stars" are doing. Had Eno not been Roxy Music, I don't think that we would know who he is at all. I do believe that someone else would have developed ideas for ambient music, however.

There we go, that should ruffle some feathers, we're going to have a conversation now, amiright?
There are a lot of people who've said and written a lot of fool things about Eno, including Eno himself. However, if the topic is ambient music, he IS the 500 lb gorilla - for good or ill.

At this point in my life, I personally can't be arsed to set out an hour to "listen" to what is designed to be background music. Maybe once or twice a year. I love "Airports" and "Lux", but I rarely listen to them. If I want that kind of musical experience, I usually listen to Steve Reich. Ooops, there's that process thing rearing its ugly head.

"The Ship" has its moments - it's not quite ambient and there is a big homage to early electronic music that is very pleasant-sounding to me. And it's got a Velvet Underground song

But I have really been loving the 2 Karl Hyde collaborations and the Jon Hopkins/Leo Abraham power trio stuff. Those are rock albums. Heavy rotation.

The modern "ambient" stuff that I have heard is unremarkable. Even artists that I like, like Phil Knight, just drab.

Post

SODDI wrote:
There are a lot of people who've said and written a lot of fool things about Eno, including Eno himself. However, if the topic is ambient music, he IS the 500 lb gorilla - for good or ill.
No doubt, I'm just saying that I'm not surprised that people aren't interested in talking about him. He's not doing anything interesting really.
At this point in my life, I personally can't be arsed to set out an hour to "listen" to what is designed to be background music. Maybe once or twice a year.
I listen to ambient music every single night. In fact, I've gone to sleep to ambient music for the last ten years or so and often an hour isn't even close to enough.
The modern "ambient" stuff that I have heard is unremarkable. Even artists that I like, like Phil Knight, just drab.
What would make it remarkable, to you? I mean, I'm not sure that ENO was ever "remarkable" to me. I like Music for Airports, I can't say that I love it. Really, my first well worn ambient album was Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works. So, even though I'm old enough to have experienced Eno's ambient music when it was current, I didn't.

Post

This conversation died too quickly, free bump!

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”