How did melon head give this a 6?
nerd
>>60674791
That's all it should get, pitchfork gave it something like 8.4 which is fucking insane. It's just okay.
>>60674791
because he never listened to anything older than aphex twin other than bob dylan
it's too harsh for a white vegan with a small black housewife
It's not good
because fantano though /mu/ would hate it
fantano is always after /mu/ cred
>>60674791
his points made sense but like youre either an arca follower or youre a casual
>>60674897
why would anyone want to know fantanos points critiques is beyond my higher self
does fantano have an absolute ear
i don't think so
i (absolutely) heard he made a career out of dishwashin
>>60674940
Why is Mutant special in your absolute ear
>>60674791
it's more like a 5 t.bh
>>60674940
What the fuck is all this about an absolute ear and what does it ave to do about liking Arca?
>>60674791
BECAUSE WE ESTABLISHED THAT HE'S NOT A CREDIBLE REVIEWER. FUCK YOUR 3/10 ON HEARTTHROB, FANTANO, YOU FUCK
I HAVE THE ABSOLUTE EAR
it's well known MRAnthony knows jack shit about anything electronic
>>60674791
because it sucks, there are way better similar albums
>>60675541
>using the term electronic
>>60675622
electronic
electronic
electronic
because its ass
>>60674940
lmao getting this upset over an album review
idk why you guys are shitting on this album so much recently. it's incredible. this thing is a glimpse into the future. the audio engineering is on another level it's like electronic music's answer to free jazz.
>>60674791
I would give it a 7
>>60676516
Is it really all that futuristic tho
This sort of experimental electronic music has been around for a while.
Isn't this just the p4k-approved version of Autechre?
>>60676574
>This sort of experimental electronic music has been around for a while.
can i get an example? opn comes to mind but i think he's great too
>>60676645
is autechre not p4k approved? either way they are still pretty firmly rooted in beat-driven dance music. mutant is a complete abandonment of conventional rhythm. it focuses more on texture and fluidity
>>60676645
more like if autechre also had downs syndrome
>>60676516
it sounds very contemporary and will sound dated in 5 years. just like any music that tries to sound "futuristic". most new age sounds cheesy yo us now. this will sound cheesy to us in the future.
>>60676799
Holly Herndon is also p4k-approved and she does the same shit
>>60676645
I don't know, there are some key differences. Seems a bit more texture focused and less so on the syncopated beats and rhythms like Ae. I think Arca is also more tethered to the current culture of dance music and deconstructing certain aspects of it.
That being said parts of Mutant remind me of the more musique concrete type tracks from Quaristice while also being similarly structured.
>>60676763
I don't think p4k have given Autechre a positive review for like a decade.
>mutant is a complete abandonment of conventional rhythm. it focuses more on texture and fluidity
Did you hear ae's recent live releases?
>>60676799
idk man. i have a feeling that with the rapid evolution of technology, it won't be long before electronic classical music is a popular style among musicians. albums like this are flirting with that idea
>>60676886
>Did you hear ae's recent live releases?
i haven't. the most recent thing i've heard by them is exai which is an incredible record, but i wouldn't compare it to mutant.
>>60676516
>this thing is a glimpse into the future. the audio engineering is on another level it's like electronic music's answer to free jazz
This kind of shit's been around for decades, long before dance music even. There's nothing new about it.
>>60676516
>the audio engineering is on another level
>>60676516
people wont all like it because its too depressing sounding and can be a bit grating/annoying
>>60676945
I'd recommend giving them a listen. They're very fluid and sound design-orientated, very few sections have recognisable beats as such.
>>60676882
like a trendy version of autechre then
like a kind of watered-down autechre, where the water consists of things that other people did recently
>>60676950
>There's nothing new about it
i'd argue that the complexity, variety, and sheer attention to detail of the sounds on this record are something that would have been literally impossible even a few years ago. sure the idea isn't necessarily new, but the way that it has been done here is completely mind-blowing. yeah stockhausen and tangerine dream had some weird-ass electronic shit, but the actual sounds and synthesizers sound undeniably dated.
>>60677105
why would it have been impossible? what new techniques is he using?
>>60677022
cool i'll be sure to check them out. but even if they are similar to mutant, i don't think that could subordinate mutant. i'm not saying that arca is the first or only person to do something like this. i just think it's a really interesting idea that will most likely become more of a trend in the future. and i think that he's done it really well here
>>60677051
Nah, I think it sounds different - maybe part of the same genealogy, sure, but I think he's developed his own style. I do think it makes a difference that Arca is taking all these outside influences and trends but turning them on their heads, while Ae have always wanted to occupy a universe kind of divorced from the current climate. You might not enjoy Arcas methods, but I think he's doing something a little different from them.
>>60677169
i mean that quite literally we didn't have the technology to create these kinds of sounds back then. he's not necessarily using new techniques, but he's definitely using new equipment/software
>>60677105
Give any trust fund babby like arca shit loads of time and equipment and they could make something exactly like this if not better if they put the effort in, it's nothing new, that's why Fantano gave it a 6.
>>60677225
could you elaborate? i'm not sure how you can tell he's using new equipment
>>60677365
you aren't a dumb person, but that was a dumb comment
you should take a break from the computer
>>60677225
Has he ever mentioned what software he uses? Most of the popular ones have been on the market for least a decade
>>60677365
modern art isn't about who has the ability to do something, it's about who actually takes the time to do that thing. look at some pollock and listen to some drone music
>>60677391
first you should tell me which past artists you think that arca is ripping off here
>>60677225
>i mean that quite literally we didn't have the technology to create these kinds of sounds back then.
wtf are you even talking about m8???
>>60677217
i'm not disputing what you said, but how is he turning trends on their heads?
>>60677498
i never said he was ripping anybody off, i asked you how you can tell he's using new equipment
equipment is not people
>>60677507
Well I'm not an expert, but imo I hear a lot of aspects of the current trap scene in his music, but of course he's just obsfucating them and turning them into these really odd tracks, but I think you can hear the basis.
>>60677585
i think autechre probably do that too, but i've never been much of a musicologist
>>60677498
Exactly, and people like arca have all the time in the world, his dad is rich, he lived in a gated community growing up, he has had all the leisure time in the world, and this is what he produced, what I'm saying is, anyone in his position could do the same.
>>60677528
>>60677503
>>60677482
it doesn't matter exactly what equipment he's using and i'm no expert so i couldn't tell you if i wanted to.
you guys are missing the point. if you think that this album sounds like electronic music from the past, then you're delusional. show me anything from earlier than 5 years ago that sounds like this and i'll recant my statement. if you don't think that he's ripping anyone off like>>60677528
then you have no reason to by arguing with me in the first place. the only thing i'm trying to say here is that this album is original. but for some reason you guys are refusing to accept that.
>>60677621
>anyone in his position could do the same.
ok but why does that matter at all?
>>60677702
yeah sorry, just earlier you said he was definitely using new equipment/software
idk, who cares anyway it's just about whether it's good or not right?
>>60677612
Maybe they do, but I don't think they do so consciously. They never got into making their tracks with any sort of preconceived philosophy or influence or ideas - it's more about pure exploration of sound in what they can find with messing around with their patches or w/e, whereas I do believe that Arca takes some of the current climate in dance/electronic music in account in his process, and maybe that's why he appeals to a younger and more "hip" generation. I don't know why I'm even taking this Devils advocate position (as I didn't LOVE Mutant) but I do think he has a great amount of potential and that he's not totally derivative.
>>60677744
yeah i think i actually agree desu his stuff is solid enough
he reminds me more of locust than autechre anyway fwiw
>>60677734
it's cool. i should have made it clearer that i don't know exactly how he makes his music. i just know that it doesn't sound like anything from the past.
>>60677717
I think it devalues the intent and the final product, there was nothing fought for to achieve the end result, and it shows on the album, it's very very lifeless at times. I suppose thats what we will be getting in the future with "electronic" music though, it's dominated by wealthy dweebs with all the time in the world. Something about a rich kid sitting in a studio with no real life experience or adversity to get where he is makes the music less special. I don't know.
>>60677744
i say, those are some fucking cool digits
>>60677923
pic related is considered to be a masterpiece of modern abstract art. duchamp took a urinal from a bathroom, wrote his name on it, and put it on a pedestal.
once again. it's not about how difficult it is to make the art. it's about the statement that's being made.
you're looking at it from a very conservative, classicist perspective. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of people who will agree with you, but if you want to be able to understand and appreciate modern art, then you should try to think about it differently.
Fantano should be dead, desu
>>60678073
i'm serious though. you can't discredit art by saying it was easy to make
>>60678027
I don't think a photo of a urinal is art, but the mans name is a testament to marketing and conspicuous consumption. The real "art" of that piece is how he has fooled people into thinking its art with postmodern relativism and subjectivity. The art is in the deception and ad speak he has used to sell it.
>>60675622
>using the term electronic as a genre rather than as a descriptor
ftfy bb ;)
>>60678027
>he fell for the "if you really think you can understand modern art" meme.
Top kek, even a few post structuralist philosphers have admitted in private conversations the secret to being a modern intellectual is obscurantism and ambiguity.
>>60678171
so what you're saying is that it's artistic because of the statement that's being made.
this track is way more interesting than everything on mutant
http://diuersae.bandcamp.com/track/92-v0a-sjzkla-jss-s-s-f-f-f
>>60678244
i don't really understand what you're trying to say here. i never said that modern art has concrete meaning. you experience art as an active audience and what you take away from it may be different from what another person takes away from it. in that sense it's most definitely ambiguous.
>>60678320
haha not even close faggot
>>60678264
I wouldn't call deception art either, it's more of an elaborate joke being played on people who think it's art, pretentious college students and wealthy socialites in local art scenes who propagate certain images and pieces until people start believing they are good. I don't particularly go for the "everything is art" ideology, I think certaon lines should be drawn and art should be based on merit and a refinement of certain skills.
>>60678348
"ok"
>>60678320
i'm a shameless tmt drone and can still realise that this is pretentious tmt pandering wank
>>60678357
ok well i respectfully disagree. but considering that people have been arguing about this for centuries, i have no way to prove you wrong or myself right. it's just a matter of opinion
>>60678389
ok but i dont care about tinymixtapes
>>60678357
When people, especially layman, say "art should be based on merit" what they really mean is "art should be sensually pleasant to me". There's more than a bit of anti-intellectualism to it, and also a hypocritical demand for objectivity using their own subjectivity as a means of appraisal.
Ridiculous.
>>60678413
Honestly, don't fall into the "everything can be art" ideology. It's intellectually hollow and has the depth and profundity of a teenager who thinks drugs should be legal. If everything can be art, nothing is art. It devalues the practice of creation.
i would just like to point out that regardless of your personal philosophical understandings of what constitutes art, those who are arguing that this album is bad because it was easy to make are SEVERELY underestimating the amount of experience and talent that sound design like this requires. this thing was definitely not easy to make
Closed.
>>60678531
Do you like Basquiat? Or do you think it's not "real art"
>>60678531
it's not that everything is art. it's that everything that was created with the intention of creating art is art. if you accidentally splatter a bunch of paint on a canvas because you spilled it, then it isn't art. if you intentionally splatter a bunch of paint on a canvas to create an art piece, then it's art. pic related. it's all about intention.
also what do you have to say about this?>>60678468
>>60678587
I don't like his work, it's definitely art though, although I wouldn't say it's particularly fine art.
>the most discussed electronic album of the past year is some garbage muh IDM nonsense
not even surprised in the level of shit taste desu
>>60674839
psh, Anthony's edgier than you kids. in fact hes probably the coolest around.
looks like you should back off
>>60678602
the intention is completely irrelevant. If someone was very lucky in spilling their paint and ended up with something as good as that Pollock then that is obviously accidental art
>>60678655
shouldn't you be in /bleeb/ or dancing at some club somewhere?
>>60678602
Just because you intend to create something with the intent on making a statement, does not make it a successful statement or imply that it set out to do what it was originally intended to do. It's the equivalent on being taken seriously and given an "effort" ribbon at an art competition, pacifying and placating everyone for what they do is unproductive, and, again, devalues actual artists and the craft itself.
>>60678602
Nah. It begins becoming art if people see it as art, simple as that.
>>60678531
I genuinely don't understand. You complain about "osbcurantism" when it comes to current art movements, yet also complain when you perceive art as mundane and earthly?
>>60678698
i completely disagree. but once again, it's a matter of opinion.
>>60678707
i'm talking about art as an objective concept. what is art and what isn't. you're talking about what's good art and what's bad art. the quality of art is completely subjective. if you think that an art piece someone else made is bad or unsuccessful, then that's totally fine, but it doesn't mean that it isn't art.
>>60678800
Mundane and earlthy can definitely be a very artistic form of expression, I just don't think people execute it well most of the time.
>>60678740
the question of whether art is in the eye of the beholder or the eye of the artist is another ongoing debate that has yet to be settled.
>>60678828
>>60678863
it's barely a matter of opinion. You can't possibly think that of two identical paintings only the deliberate one is art, that would be absurd
>>60678027
Please recognize that there are a lot of plebs on this board who won't recognize the genius that is Duchamp. Don't even try to explain it this why desu senpai
>>60678872
that's absolutely what i think. art is an abstract concept but it has to have some form of criteria. otherwise, as many other people in this thread have said, everything would be art, and the concept of art would lose all meaning.
as an artist, i don't think that other people have the right to decide whether or not the piece that I'VE put the effort into creating is art or not. i made it to be art so it's art. you don't have to think it's good art, but you can't say that it isn't art.
>>60678928
This turbo pleb was tricked by Duchamp.
>>60678983
>but it has to have some form of criteria
>i made it to be art so it's art
so intention IS the main form of criteria for you?
>>60679050
yeah that's what he's been saying...
>>60678983
even a bad artist can make something that is art, but I'd be very uncomfortable making the criteria so simple as intention
I can't give a good easy-to-apply replacement criterion though
>>60679050
Not the guy you're replying too, but I think, deep down, people know it to be true that most modern art is garbage, they just claim it's lovely because everybody else around them does and they want to fit in. It's a great joke.
>>60679113
as long as you acknowledge that it's still art. then i don't care if you don't like it
>>60679113
Me thinks you're projecting a wee bit too much here.
I loved stretch 2 and Xen was pretty good, but at this point Arca needs to innovate beyond "I'm a tranny here are some warbly super weird beats that reflect my fluid sexuality." Some parts have some real inspiration but its a lot more of the same.
>>60679099
>yeah that's what he's been saying...
lol, yeah i totally read his reply wrong. soz mate.
>>60679113
i don't think that's true at all, really. and anyways i don't believe what draws people to modern art is it's "loveliness" either.
>>60679099
It seems to me that you're overly worried that suddenly art is not going to be valued by craftmanship when that's not going to happen. Ever. It's not like there's one unique way to value a subjective experience.
i like how the people who were arguing that art should be based on merit, haven't said anything since this post was made >>60678468
>>60679245
yeah, if anything the flooding of all the pieces based on context or subjectivity to the audience's thoughts/emotions only highlight how important works based on skill, merit, and technical ability are. i don't think one can exist without the other, and the dichotomy between the two only makes each perspective stronger.
of course this is just my viewpoint.
>>60674791
This is garbage and everyone who enjoy listening to this trash should burn in hell.
Pic related the disgusting decadent talentless fag who made this rubbish from a satanistic unholy ritual with chicken heads and his feces.
We've gone far beyond occultism now, this should remain in its place.
>>60679408
lol i can't tell if this is a joke or not
arca a shit
arca a gay faggot
>>60679408
You're a walking stereotype. Holy shit.
I like Arca sonically but I literally cannot take his aesthetic seriously at all. He is a degenerate begging for validation and attention.
>>60681076
I find it so incredibly bad that it's tolerable
>>60681076
this. kinda wish i stuck to just listening
>>60679171
It's a valid projection, deep down people either realize modern "art" is one big joke they are playing along with to fit in and keep the joke running, or they have been fooled into thinking it actually is good and are slightly deluded and use modern art as a way to foster a certain image of themselves to project onto others. A certain affected cultural refinement they use to differenciate themselves from people with more mainstream taste.
>>60679408
>>60680995
>>60681076
>>60681089
>>60681096
is this the kekservative equivalent of a sjw being triggered?
>>60681141
it's not even offensive, it's just so obvious; kind of funny honestly
>>60681111
modern art? nah, much of that is actually aesthetically pleasing on the most base and primal level imo. but i could agree with your point a bit more in regards to postmodern art. but then again that's sort of the statement they're making in the first place.
>>60679309
shut up faggot i already answered that
>>60681111
>deep down people either realize modern "art" is one big joke they are playing along with to fit in and keep the joke running
Source?
>>60681258
this.
