Alva Noto - Transform (2001) [SAA Album Club discussion Thread]
 

Alva Noto - Transform (2001)

This album was the second choice from the SAA Album Club, recommended by Janszoon.
So, how do you like it?

I'm going to start with some hate. But before I do I want to say if someone totally ripped into one of my suggestions it might kind of hurt my feelings. So Janszoon, I appreciate the suggestion. It's nothing personal.

This album is completely dull, genre driven, uninspired, pretentious, directionless trash. This is a generic glitch record that doesn't go anywhere with it from start to finish. If this were metal, it would be like JUST the drums and basslines to the fifth Metallica record. On Wiki it says he performed at the Guggenheim and MoMA! What a crock! How lame and pretentious and unknowledgeable can these jerk-offs be?

:rofl:

Yeah, but what do you really think? :laughing:

This is an album that took a couple listens to click with me so I can understand not immediately being blown away by it. It's a grower though, and in my opinion it's a very good album. I don't know what "genre driven" is supposed to mean but I actually find Alva Noto's style pretty unique so I don't think I can agree with you there or with the idea that it's "uninspired". Also I strongly disagree that the album is directionless, it builds in structure in an interesting way as it goes on. In fact that's one of the things I really like about it. Not sure why we're comparing this album to metal albums but if I were to do so I'd compare it to early Sunn 0))): minimalistic and immersive.

If you're the kind of person who gets worked up into a rage every time you listen to something that's associated with fine art or that you think is "pretentious", I'm honestly surprised that you'd even want to participate in these discussions. I seems like it would just get your blood pressure up every week.

I don't know, I kind of liked it. Disappointed a tad I had to crank up my volume to max even to hear it, though. Very unique, however. Reminds me a lot of experiments I used to do loading non-audio files into audacity as binary. The one thing I really like about this is the assumption that it uses no drum machine(and if it does, don't tell me, it'll break my heart) but produces those perfect beats simply with the strange tones. Something really enthralled me about how it'd break into a techno-beat every once in awhile but utilizing completely non-drum machine means.

Occulthawk complains a lot above about this being a sterile album. I feel that's almost like complaining a horror movie is too disturbing. The point of is to be very sterile, and mechanical. It's kind of the dry feeling of living in a technologically subdued society. The boldness in being that 100% anti-pop, and not giving the listener an easy ride, is what makes this album truly unique truly, as the label denotes, avant-garde.

By 'genre driven' I mean in no way pioneering.

But Sunn 0))) makes my balls tingle, this doesn't.

I don't mind something being artsy and pretentious if the artist can back it up.

That's a good point except I didn't think of it as 'sterile'. After I bring my blood pressure down a bit I'll give it another go with that angle in mind because I can see that as a positive attribute but one I didn't have the insight on my first full listen. Maybe you can hold my hand through it when I'm ready to try again? :shycouch:

From what I've read he doesn't use any kind of sequencers (including drum machines presumably). The sounds are sampled, partially from found electronic sources, but I think mostly from oscillators, then he stitches everything together piece by piece in a sound editing program.

Yeesh, that has to take some level of dedication. Really comes off well, sounds very precise.

A lot of times, when listening to albums of a particular style I'm not familiar with that is more or less "new to me", I'm concerned that I've missed the point upon first listen. With this album, if not just concerened that I've missed part of the intended effect, I'm slightly concerned that I've missed some of the nuances in the bass; my headphones did not seem very receptive to the album, unfortunately.

The first minute and a half was almost unlistenable, initially. I started the album, and then decided it was not the time to devote nearly an hour to the work in its entirety; I wasn't ready for it yet.

Finally, I opted for an empty house, a dark room, a set of headphones, and very intent listening. What I found surprised me. While the use of electronic sounds, painstakingly patched together to create the music itself, seemed initially completely cold, detached, and to steal a word from previous opinions on the album, "sterile", as the album progressed, it felt a lot less frigid than initially believed.

It doesn't seem so much created to evoke any strong emotion in the listener per say, but it is superb mood music. Not that the mood it seems to cause the listener to be overcome by is particularly happy or comfortable, but it is very effective at inducing a particularly uncomfortable, uneasy mood: Something's happening.

At times, it seems to project images of ravers, dancing, slack-jawed, and zombie eyed dancing amidst chrome machinery as far as the eye can see. (See Module 7) At others, it feels alarmingly like R2D2's wet dream. (See Module 3) Overall, however, it's a superb show of editing skill, supremely interesting, and something I definitely crave listening to again...with better headphones, of course.

Nice recommended album, Janszoon.

When I first went to look up this album, I went to youtube. I listened to Module 7 and hated it. I thought it was idiotic and annoying. Then, when this album was elected to be the next to listen to, I reluctantly downloaded it to my MP3 player. After I began to listen to Module 3, I got to listen to it better. You can't really listen to this album without headphones or ear buds - it makes a huge difference. I was actually surprised to hear how layered, yet simplistic, it all sounded. I then began to listen to the other Modules, and actually found that itsounded a bit funk-driven and had a very modern-sounding beat. I have to say I love this album (and I am still surprised). I even find the "songs" a bit soothing, so I sometimes listen to them before I go to sleep. Module 3 is my favorite...

I noticed it sounded better on my Koss headphones than it did on my JVC's and it was the bass.

I'm upset that we've resorted to attributing the word 'pretentious' to music yet again... It makes absolutely no sense. Anyways:

Millions of little frequencies running amok all over a soundscape. I listened to this on speakers once and wouldn't have it, as its multitude of sounds simply come across as high-pitched nonsense. In order to truly understand the accurate positioning of all of the sounds contained here, you need to hear it in a good pair of headphones. A lot of electronic music makes that sort of demand, and anybody who chooses to listen to it in ignorance of that fact likely will never ever get their money's worth from it.

Anyways, when the wide range of frequencies finally settle into place the listening experience is sedative. Very centering and enjoyable in the appropriate mindset.

You don't think music can present itself (or be presented) as something more than it is?

That's not pretentiousness. That's just a disguise. Like somebody coloring up a simple pop melody in heavy orchestration and calling it 'classically influenced'. That's not pretentiousness; that's inaccuracy. It's a problem, but it's not pretentiousness. Pretentiousness occurs in the music industry, but not in the actual music itself. I've talked with people who think that free jazz albums are pretentious because "THEY'RE TOTALLY ASSUMING I WANNA LISTEN TO 20 MINUTES OF WAILING WHY NO GOOD SIR?" In WHICH CASE, the person SAYING that is pretentious as they're ASSUMING based on their PERSONAL IMPORTANCE that these people should not make something that doesn't register with them. THAT'S pretentiousness. A human trait, not a musical one in any sense.

A copy-paste from a list I made a while back:

So yeah.

Let me see if I can collect my thoughts this late in the night.

This album is very intriguing. When I heard it's supposed to be glitch, I went into my first listen with a bit of hesitation and that's mostly because the last Autechre album I've heard recently, Quaristice, with it's clicks and cuts and too much fragmentation, gave me a rather hard time. But, I managed to get into this much easier. I think it's because Alva Noto's Transform is more minimal and employs a bit of industrial noise over or under the relentless electronic beats, tying everything together. So, despite fragmentation there's a sense of the whole. Some parts, those that are the most repetitive (at least on the outside) and noisy, reminded me for a moment of Pan Sonic.

Many of you mentioned that this is a very cold music, and I agree. But, what makes this different from the cold music that doesn't do anything for you, meaning, 'yeah I see this is all very interesting formally, but not really engaging and immersive" ? It's the fact that here coldness is the expression and not just form. I mean, I must say that the second track 'Module 2' is probably the coldest, but very immersive and hypnotizing. The best word I can think of to describe it is not digital or cyber or mathematical or any other non-descriptive word, but radioactive. The main tone throughout is quiet actually, but so piercing and deafening that it feels like it's shaking your bones. The sensation goes beyond hearing. I don't know why it reminds me of radioactivity, since I thankfully have no idea what it's like to be in a zone of high radiation. But it does.

I've noticed that the first few tracks are very quiet and often start with these sharp, piercing tones carrying some heavy pressure that can be felt in the chest. Underneath is some rhythm trying to develop, but remains fragmented, it goes in and out. In the 'Module 3' this beat finally sets in, becomes driving, even catchy. The last few tracks, I think from 'Module 6' and so on, are louder. There's a bit of that industrial noise and tension. 'Module 7' with its repetition, noisiness and hypnosis reminded me of Pan Sonic the most. 'Module 9' even lets you move a little to the beat.

It seems like this album has a concept of some kind. It starts quiet, minimal and piercing, but gradually becomes noisier, heavier, more driving, with many different electronic sounds battling, richer. You can even dance a little :)

So this is still my first impression after a couple of listens. Not only it is interesting, it gives a promise that after more listens it will let me fully absorb it, which is something that I need to repeatedly get back to an album.

i hate to bring up Coil again...but...this entire albums reminds me of a collection of intro's to many Coil songs....

i love the minimal use of sound and then creating the hypnotic, almost mind numbing effects with them.....personally i really feel this guy is amazing artists and would really love to see him live and see just what he does with his multi-media

pretty much i really enjoyed this and really feel it falls under the avant-garde umbrella....great choice Janszoon

I find this discussion about pretentiousness very interesting, so I'll add my two cents:

I definitely agree that this is a legitimate thing to say for any work of art. That's indeed what makes something pretentious. Although I don't agree that this album is.

@clutnuckle

I think you're nitpicking here. If I follow your logic then I couldn't attribute any adjective to music that I would to people. So I couldn't say some piece of music is emotional, or cold; even you said 'demanding of your attention'. Well, that's human trait, right? I could say, if music can demand something, then it can also claim importance. But, the thing is, if I, as a listener, find that importance is justified, because going deeper into it I was rewarded, I wouldn't call it pretentious. However, when there's nothing beneath to justify it, well, then, that's when using the term 'pretentious' is warranted.

Completely opposite of you, I would never call an artist pretentious, only his work. I don't know him as a person and I don't care what he's like. I only care for what he puts in his art. People are more complex than art. Ultimately, no matter how deep, layered and broad some work of art is, it's only an artist's expression, a point of view, an act in time and place. The artist himself is much more than what he presents there. So I could say, pretentiousness is not some absolute, inherent character trait, but only exists as an act, the way someone expresses himself in time and place. And art is only the most elaborate act.

I don't understand how something as agenda-less as this can be pretentious. The only thing I find pretentious are things like U2 which constantly preach, and shove their holier-than-thou opinions down on you. I see this piece as ambitiously unique. If it achieved what it was trying to, or not, it's not the artists fault for aiming high, neither is it pretension.

Like I said I don't think this particular album is pretentious. And there's nothing wrong with aiming high. But, I didn't feel this album aimed particularly high on purpose. It has something unassuming, so it achieves more than it appears on the first hearing. That's what makes it even better.

But, yes, I can find that even pure music that doesn't have any 'themes' or 'agendas' can be pretentious through the way it uses its form to insinuate greater depths than it has. For example, it can look more complex on the outside than on the inside. That's when I would use the word 'pretentious'.

That's not what pretentiousness is. That's just inaccuracy misleading you. Because the song in question NEVER told you it was going to be mind-blowing. Perhaps a pretentious artist did. That artist is likely pretentious in that context when discussing that particular song/album/whatever.

Terms like 'emotional' and 'sad' I can sort of see being applied to music - they're so utterly general. But it's like calling a song something incredibly specific like 'jealous', not based off of angsty lyrics, but just off some sort of arbitrary decision. Such specific, situational terms never work for musical analysis.

If people are complex, why are we applying such nit-picky, overindulgent terms like 'pretentious' to music and not the artist? Don't the artists need the extra description if they're so much deeper and complex than what they create?

I don't really know what to tell you for that last part - pretentious IS a character trait by definition. Yes, a person won't ALWAYS be pretentious, the same way they won't always be jealous about something, but they've still exhibited the trait.

Though I will admit I like the bolded point, just not in terms of how music gets to carry all of the artist's personal problems; the music is pretentious because the artist was an ******* for a week? Not very fair at all.

In my defense I'm going to quote this again:

and Twinke Twinkle Little Star explains relativity.

So, you suggest we just be writing songs about weed, and tits? Give the guy a break, he's thinking outside the box. Whether he achieves or no, at least he's trying to do something more than normal.

Well, a) You're confusing pretentiousness for ambition and artistic drive.

b) A pretentious artist =/= pretentious music.

c) It's not as though he simply said it and did nothing to achieve it. The music is clearly fragmented, cautious and occasionally very serene, all of the things that he wanted to incorporate.

I'm honestly not sure why you keep quoting that. Do you even know for sure that he's the one who said it?

That's a good point. I don't. But still it seems to me that's what it's pretending to be. Plain and simple, it's not all that. He needs to stop pretending he's the next Stockhausen. Anyway, those are my opinions. I don't think I have anything else worthwhile to add. I think yall's take on this music and your reactions to my comments are all fair and have validity but how it strikes me is how it strikes me. I hope you can respect that I did listen to it carefully with headphones and I am long term lover of experimental music. Also, it's not like I'm tossing this music out. I put it on a cdr and I'll give it some time and try it again and if it strikes me any different or grows on me I'll bump this thread and let you know.

No, but those are two subjects I can definitely relate to. :pimp:

Coincidentally, Alva Noto's next album explores the nexuses of tits and weed in the contemporary milieu.

An artist can only tell me that through his song. I don't see the artist, I only 'see' his song. Therefore song tells me it's going to be mind-blowing or whatever. I can call the song pretentious if it doesn't achieve what it/he promises. The artist put the pretense in the song. I don't care about him or how he acts outside of what he shows in his art. The song is his creation, it becomes a little world of its own, separated from him after it's finished. Everything he put there is now a part of it and that includes pretense.

This is very interesting that you brought up 'situation'. Yes, you can't say the song is jealous, because the situation for that feeling to emerge is not in the song. Emotions like 'happy' and 'sad' are also related to situations, but those situations are more general, I agree. But, you see, the situation for 'pretense' can be found in a work of art, in the form. Big statements on the surface (I'm talking about formal, musical statements) that leads you to anticipate some great depths of inner levels, but nothing happens actually, there are no inner levels. It's the same thing like when someone gives a speech, talks a lot in big terms, but doesn't say anything. That would make a speech very pretentious, speaker too (in relation to it), but I'm interested in speech. Everything that has an aesthetic form also has a perfect environment, or situation for pretense to appear. You may call it misleading, inaccuracy or simply a lie, it's the same thing in aesthetic terms.


Precisely because people are complex, living, always changing, I can call someone pretentious only in relation to some act. Work of art, however, is a finished product, and if an artist put some pretense there, it remains pretentious forever and ever...It becomes its defining characteristic.

Speaking of which, what is a character trait by definition? Actually don't answer this, it's a rhetorical question that will lead us too far. I was deliberately nitpicking trying to show the other side of the coin, that it's not a given truth that people are pretentious outside of their acts. That, and I don't really believe in defining character traits. But that's beside the point.

I never said music gets to carry artist's personal problems. That's something that can maybe motivate him, but what he actually puts there is more universal, deeper and abstract. He has a longing to express something. He doesn't always know how to do it, so sometimes he will pretend to know. That doesn't make him an *******.

The weed I buy, but I think you're just being pretentious with the tits ;).

How exactly is a song telling you how it thinks it's so great (which is generally the definition of pretentiousness)? It never does because it can't speak, and it can't communicate any pomposity with you. There is no song that will directly make you think "Wow this thinks it's SO GREAT. It's not even close!". If somebody actually listens to music and feels this way about a song because it used 'fancy instrument', then that's their their problem with pretentiousness, not the song's. Pretentiousness in music appears when the artist brags about something, and then their art can't back it up. The artist is pretentious, not the music.

Music can carry a lot of things, sure. A sad feeling or two he/she had when they recorded it. But pretentiousness is one of the most direct, one-dimensional descriptions for something that takes human examples to define. Not what the human made, but how the human discusses what they've made/will make. The terms 'inaccurate' and 'misleading' are much different and ultimately more satisfying because on the song's part, it really had no control over this supposed "I was expecting a lot more from this..." feeling that we sometimes get with music. The artist does, however, and therefore he is the pretentious one. The song is just a misleading work.

Look, we're running in circles here. I thought I explained in my last post how an aesthetic form gives a potential for pretense to appear, among other things. You don't think a work of art can speak to you or communicate anything? Really? Only if you take these words literally. Then, how can an artist tell me anything about song being sooo great, when he isn't really present? The only thing that's actually there for me is his work. See where being too literal can take me. Calling an artist pretentious or his work is the same thing to me, but, as I already said, I'm interested in the work, I separate it from the artist and therefore I choose to call the work pretentious. I really don't know how to explain this more clearly.

I'm not sure I understand the bold part. Where does the artist brag about something, through his work, or in an interview or generally in public life? I'll repeat this for the nth time, the only thing that should be critically evaluated is his work.

Pretentiousness is such a common occurrence in art and is a totally valid criticism. It reminds you too much of human experience? Well, guess what, that's what art reflects, it takes the good and the bad. When I hear some work is pretentious I know exactly what it's supposed to mean. The problem appears when people use this term in the wrong context, usually to take a stab at anything that is complex or highbrow. Maybe you have a problem with this misapplied usage of the word. It is certainly an overused word that people like to throw around when they're lazy and don't understand something. But, when used correctly it tells me a lot about some work of art. It tells me the work possesses a pretense to some quality, depth and artistic merit that is false.

The term 'misleading' is also taken from human experience exactly like 'pretentious'. (I mean, how can the song mislead you, only artist can ;)). And the term doesn't say the whole thing, it can be a good or a bad quality to have in art. For example, some work can be simple and unassuming on the first glance, but going more into it, it revels layers of depth that you didn't think would be there. It's a very satisfying revelation that draws you to come back to it over and over. The other example, misleading can mean that some work is unpredictable or surprising in the way it develops its form, or composition and that can be ultimately satisfying artistically.The term 'inaccurate' doesn't tell me much at all, and is somewhat meaningless when discussing artistic merit. Art is not an exact science, so how can it be accurate and why would we expect it to be.

In the end, your main problem seems to be that you can't separate the artist from his work and that is necessary when discussing the work's artistic merit.

So, I have listened to Transform probably 10 times now, far more than I normally would have probably. Not because it's bad, I think it's a good album. I was only afraid of it for about a minute because it gets really interesting around then. The reason I got scared when all I heard was a tone is that it reminded me of when I tried to get into the early experimental electronic composers and pretty much failed. To be honest I can't get through the OHM: The Early Gurus of Electronic Music compilation. But I like this Alva Noto album quite a bit. I started jotting little notes as I listened to it and now that I try to say anything about the album I realize that my stupid notes will make more sense just by themselves. So here they are:

I'll add that I also found this a lot better on good headphones. There's a lot of little things that I didn't pick up before on regular speakers.

Overall, good album.

I love that compilation. I can't believe you sat through Transform 10 times and you're telling us you couldn't get through that compilation at all. Wow.

I've listened to OHM. There are a lot of songs .. er, compositions that I really like and have listened to many times. It's just really long and I can't sit through the whole thing.