Talk:Autechre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Unknown Not rated

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music. It has been rated as unknown priority to this Wikiproject.

Music Portal

Contents 1 misc 2 Layout and the Music section 3 Algorithmic Generation 4 Autechre name origin 5 living arrangements 6 "Please expand this article." 7 Article protection 8 Adding reviews

[edit] misc

I have to say I don't agree with any of the three 'suspicions' listed. The third one certainly would be strongly disputed by ae themselves.Ledge 14:42, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think those "suspicions" are meant to be accusation as such (thie third one, for instance, is trying to say that Autechre's music sounds like it was written by computers, not that it actually was), but I certainly think these are rather personal responses to Autechre's music and probably not appropriate for the article. I'm not sure about this assertion that their music is "thick and dense" either - it's always seemed a model of clarity to me. If we could find a review by a recognised critic who said these sorts of things about Autechre, then we could quote him and that would be fine, but otherwise that commentary should probably be taken out (I'll leave it in just for now, because I'm in a rush, but if somebody else takes it out, that'll be fine as far as I'm concerned). --Camembert

'K, I've taken out the suspicions, and added a piece about reactions to their music which I hope is a bit more NPOV. I'm not really sure who could count as a recognised critic... also added a piece about the generative storm-in-a-teacup, unfortunately couldn't find a decent single quote in the article to sum it up. --Ledge

I suppose by "recognised critic" I just meant somebody who has had stuff published in a reasonably well known magazine (rather than somebody writing in their blog or whatever). What you've added looks pretty good to me. --Camembert

We're not sure about this, but.. AUral TECHnology REdefined, article in Sound on Sound, around 1993? Someone can verify or acknowledge this? Guaka 19:34, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've heard this rumour before (as AUdio TECHnology REsearch), but never seen any proof. No evidence of a 1993 interview on the SoS website, no mention in the 1997 interview.Ledge

Little mistake. It was Future Music. Still need to locate the magazine in a huge pile of mags and stuff.

Autechre (from anywhere, meaning anything you want, pronounced any way you want)

I met them while they were behind the counter at ambient soho back in about '94/'95?, anyway I had to ask about the name and rob said that it was originally a similar name but they had to fit it into the characters available in an atari filename so on the spur of the moment decided on autechre. Of course he could have been winding me up but they were very honest about some other stuff like what they thought of fsol and being very embarassed when I told them I had a copy of cavity job - their first 12 which has a great chord sequence by the way. davidcbarnett

What happened to the ep7 album?

Autechre consider it an EP, so it is under the EP section of the discography. Junjk 07:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It was originally released as two EPs: "EP 7.1" and "EP 7.2". Admittedly a confusing one, since the combined EP7 does not fit the criteria for an EP release. Magic Window 14:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout and the Music section

it seems like a lot of the information that should be grouped together is unnecessarily spread across several of the sections here.

the general information at the top should probably say where they are from; and while this happens in the history section now, i think the general information should also introduce the names of the members.

right now, music software and algorithmic pattern generation get mentioned in the music section, but i think they should probably be moved to the methods section. their music definitely has an intimidating unconventionality to it (which i myself actually found immediately appealing, contrary to the article's claim), but the fact that they use music software and algorithms to generate it is secondary to the style itself, which i think the music section is trying to describe.

that section is a bit weak right now in my opinion, if it's really attempting to be a description of style, and i think there is a lot of detail that could be added. an attempt could be made to chronicle their stylistic changes over their carreer. the most notable change is probably between the clean sterility of Tri Repetae and Chiastic Slide's crunchier edge, though there have been significant changes with almost every album since Incunabula.

also i think that draft 7.30 no longer holds the throne for most percussion-oriented album, now that untilted is out, but im not sure it's necessary to point out which album is most drum oriented in the section's current form, which is a general overview of their style. all of their albums have a lot of percussion-heavy tracks, and this sounds like draft 7.30 is the pinnacle of their style. Twelvethirteen 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

note: i made some of the changes i talked about in that diatribe (excuse the diatribe). i also changed the word "nickname" to "moniker" since a nickname is given by someone else, while a moniker is given to yourself. ae is a moniker because it appears on their official releases. i changed "max/msp/jitter" to "max/msp." jitter is an expansion for max/msp that allows the inclusion and processing of video signals. though they may own jitter, i find it doubtful that they use it in their music.

it would also be nice to at some point include some booth/brown quotes from interviews or references to actual critical reviews, but i'll leave that to someone who is more familiar with those types of things. (for now) Twelvethirteen 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Algorithmic Generation

ive been thinking a lot about how to do justice to autechre's use of algorithmic sound and pattern generation. in particular ive been looking at this interview with sean. about 2/3 of the way through they start discussing algorithms and generative music in some depth. this could be a good source, but im not exactly sure how we could use some of these quotes. Twelvethirteen 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it says "but Sean Booth has disputed these claims" and refers to the website you quote, but this is wrong IMHO, I don't think he disputes that, he rather mocks (sp?) the interviewers take on algorithmic music. I think that part should be deleted. (Link to interview should stay though) 85.178.53.25 13:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment Alex 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autechre name origin

Autechre did an interview in 1994 with a Los Angeles based culture/future media magazine "Resource" where they claimed the name "Autechre" came from a random character generator that either Booth or Brown had coded. The program simply spit out an eight-character alphabetic form when triggered. "Autechre" came up eventually and they simply liked the look and potential sound of it.

I will have to dig through some stacks to find that issue for a source. I might have the name wrong.

I am most totally certain that any notion the name means "Audio Architecture" or "Audio Technology Redefined" or any variation is false; its proliferation seems to stem from a series of erroneous discussions on the IDM mailing list at hyperreal.org during the mid to late 1990's.

[edit] living arrangements

in the interview:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~reynolda/music_ae_092801.html

sean talks about the working relationship with rob, and runs through his day so far, at one point saying:

"Yeah, and then he got up about five minutes after I did (laughs) and just like didn't have any coffee."

do they live together? do they share a bed? are they lovers?

*LOL* no man.. IIRC the have somewhat comparable studios, Rob lives in london and Sean is married to Mira Calix and lives somewhere in the country side, Suffolk.

see http://www.discogs.com/artist/Mira+Calix

nice guys btw --Wires 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Please expand this article."

Is this tag still needed? It's starting to remind me of those perpetual "This page is under construction" GIFs. There's room to grow, but the article seems adequate. – edgarde 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yes. Expansion tags often end up in places where people wouldn't like to see them, but they're needed here. In addition to the sectstub tags under Music and Methods (those two sections are hardly adequate), the article could do with more on public perception of Autechre's music and responses from peers and critics. I figure a lot of people who view this page regularly have been waiting a long time for that additional material. — Shoejar 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Any article that isn't already at a 'featured' level could use expansion. It's implicit in the site. I'm going to remove the top tag, as Edgarde suggested. --Quiddity 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection

Considering the constant vandalising of this article, how about semi-protection? I requested it once about two months ago and it was knocked back. What do people think? Shoejar^talk/edits

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. It's only to be used as a last resort, and this page has only been vandalised a few times in the last week. Protection would only be an option if there were dozens of problems per day. (eg It's a Wonderful Life - History - this was protected today.) We can easily watch&fix the tiny amount that occurs here. :) --Quiddity 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was proper justification at the time semi-protection was rejected, but the regularity of it has gotten on my nerves since then. I dunno. Shoejar

[edit] Adding reviews

There is an editor who has recently decided, unfortunately, to take ownership of this article for his own agenda (whatever that might be) and reverting any edits made to it. To whichever anonymous editor who added reviews of Untilted, Peel Sessions 2 and the ae3o collaboration with The Hafler Trio may instead want to consider adding these to their album pages directly (or create a new album page for the collaboration). AlexReynolds 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You need to learn more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as WP:CITE) before making such attacks on other editors (also read WP:NPA).
2. With regard to the gallery: Wikipedia has become extremely strict with regard to the misuse of fair-use images. In some respects I believe that this has gone too far; nevertheless, as I explained on your Talk page, insisting on such misues is not allowed, and if you continue you might well be blocked from editing as a result. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:CITE which explains your editing actions to remove the gallery. You need to properly cite relevant policy guidelines indicating why you make the changes you are making, before making drastic edits that do not reflect how nearly all WP artist pages are edited. This would otherwise be considered common courtesy.

Your behavior in this respect has been noted on your Talk page more than once by various parties. Consider this observation a personal attack if you like, but you might want to carefully rethink how you are using your administrative privileges to bully other editors. AlexReynolds 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You need to learn to read what other editors write, not what you think that they're going to write. In this case, the reference to WP:CITE was in response to your ill-informed and ill-mannered comments about my reverting of unexplained and unsourced edits by other editors.
2. "[N]early all WP artist pages" don't have galleries — very few do, in fact, and those are gradually being removed. Your behaviour in aggressively reverting explained changes made in accordance with policy, and your subsequent incivility here, leaves you in no position to throw stones.
3. I used no admin privileges. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)