Hacker News Reader

Comment by billfruit | Hacker News Reader

Anyone else find the music of Apex Twin not appealing? Like in comparison with for example, Daft Punk, what makes some people consider Aphex Twin as interesting music?

View on HN

I can't speak for anyone else, but the sheer span of sounds he wrung out of his gear is impressive, and to make them hang together in interesting ways is why I like it so much. It has real movement and dynamics, he's a songwriting wizard. One of my favorite tracks, "Vordhosbn" gets me so fucking amped, the beat is so bizarre and nervous and energetic. It's textured in a way some other electronic music isn't, it has character. Like "Yellow Calx" off Richard D. James Album, it has this percussive sound like a ball bearing ricocheting off the side of a warehouse near the beginning (which is a sound he uses in other songs I think) that I can't explain, but I love that sound so much. It doesn't happen again in the rest of the track, it's this singular spike of sound in an otherwise mellow and contemplative song, and it's really effective imo.

Sorry if this is annoying, I just really like Aphex Twin.

Daft Punk is doing something very different. It would be weird to drop "Bucephalus Bouncing Ball" at a wedding. This is not a knock on Daft Punk--I think they're great. But occupy a different space altogether and happen to also make electronic music.

Daft Punk is fine, it's fun pop music extremely well executed, but it doesn't transport me anywhere. Listening to Aphex Twin always felt like I'm taking a journey somewhere.

It requires some focus, but doesn't need a massive cultural decoder ring like many kinds of contemporary Western art music. (I mean the post-WWII music by classically trained composers.)

Philip Glass is one of the post WW2 composers whose music does not need a cultural decoder ring. His music is distinctively Glass-ian, I think very few musicians have carved out such a distinctive musical identity.

Indeed! I would recommend the Met Opera production of Glass's "Akhnaten" to absolutely anyone, even if they don't like traditional opera or contemporary music in a concert setting. It's transcendental with very beautiful staging.

Double Indeed! Akhnaten and SAW2 are two of my favorites.

I have loved Daft Punk for a long time, but one day I wanted to learn more about Aphex Twin and IDM in general and I must say it's an acquired taste. It's like getting into whiskeys.

There are still some tracks that are impenetrable, but I've been enjoy this album and the works of Squarepusher a lot. Squarepusher has such a wide range of sounds it might be a better gateway drug. I love the unapologetic electronic, artificial, synthetic feel of these two artists.

These were my ways into the genre:

- Aphex Twin - T69 Collapse (https://youtu.be/SqayDnQ2wmw) (as someone said "it's like jacking into cyberspace, but the RAR is corrupted")

- This album

- Squarepusher - Terminal Slam (https://youtu.be/GlhV-OKHecI)

- Squarepusher - Hello Everything (album)

In general many genres outside of pop are an acquired taste. If they were easy to get into, they would be called pop. You just need to find a way in, even if you decide it's not for you.

Like for example Daft Punk has a crystal clear sound that seems to have a certain warmth to it, and their seeming high production values, their good diversity of sounds in their work.

Daft Punks first two albums weren't like that. They were a little darker and had a rawer production value with very simplistic (read: not very diverse) sounds running through them.

To be clear, this isn't a dig at Daft Punk. I love their early stuff. I'm just making a point that you cannot distill an artist or genre down to a single sentence and use that as an explanation for why you like something.

Being trained to appreciate it.

Ambient music in harmonics or patterns is a lot more abstract and different then pop, so to the untrained ear it looks more generally like "static noise" and boring. Trained ears you can for example take notice of evolving patterns (albeit their usually slow evolution, seemingly repetitive). And it's not only about the stuff you're hearing but also about what could be and what I call the negative space in-between (sorta like the counterpoint in classical music).

It's the same phenomenon as to why you'd like more songs on a particular genre you're accustomed to like Pop, then to something different in patterns like Metal.

I felt the same way for years. I don’t recall which track changed my mind, but I started liking him when I had a realization that his music has a childlike element to it that I haven’t heard in any other artist. He often rebels against traditional electronic song structures, preferring instead to create sprawling expanses that finish in a very different place from where they start.

I started loving his music after I noticed how much care goes into each track, and the wide array of technique he employs.

Xtal, Ziggomatic 17, Fenix Funk 5, Mookid, 4, T69 Collapse… these tracks sonically have little in common with each other, except that they all sound vaguely “Aphexy” as a result of his trademark playfulness and high quality of polish.

> his music has a childlike element to it that I haven’t heard in any other artist

aphex twin is probably my all time favorite artist but i don't really care for the usual suspects that people tend to lump together with him (autechre, venetian snares). the reason is that he is an artist with total mastery of rhythm and electronic music production, and he PLAYS with it and has FUN.

the only other artist i've heard that has a similar playful mastery is J-Lin, and it's no surprise that richard is a fan

When and where do you usually listen to music? For me it's either while driving or while coding. In the former scenario, Daft Punk is great while Aphex Twin is too boring. In the latter, Aphex Twin is amazing while the melodies of Daft Punk are far too distracting. Perhaps that means Daft Punk is "better" since it is more likely to capture your attention.

But really, as others have pointed out, Daft Punk and Aphex Twin are different genres. It's like trying to compare Metallica with The Ramones. To an extremely untrained ear they might seem similar but they really aren't.

I mean I could list reasons, but in the end, it just comes down to taste really. Different people like different things.

Aphex Twin: musical genius

Daft Punk: bangers

They're both great, but for totally different reasons.

Even though I love Daft Punk, Aphex Twin has way more bangers than them, probably in his back catalog only.

He's on another world, imo.

> He's on another world, imo.

Completely agree. I'm a fan of both, but to me Daft Punk made some very fun dance tunes, whereas Aphex Twin's music is broad, creative, inspiring, emotional.

RDJ made music that made other people want to make music, something about his tunes are simultaneously out there and approachable and genius and make you think "I could to this too"

I like his music a lot, but I do get tired of nerds constantly fawning all over him.

Drukqs was great because it was something different. He has been kind of hit or miss since then.

I really liked Syro personally, as a long time fan.

Same here.

I find I need to listen to most of his albums a couple of times before I fall for them whereas Syro clicked first time.

Drukqs is a popular album to get stoned to. Although some songs on it are depressing as fuck and give me bad vibes. I love all the drill-and-bass songs though.

You can enjoy music with your mind, body, or heart. People are resonant against these in different strengths. Certain types of complicated or glitchy electronic music appeal more to mind/body types.

Just stopping in to say I found this very insightful -- thank you.

Why do people buy red cars when blue cars exist?

Although I don't understand the comparison - from my point of view comparing Aphex Twin to Daft Punk is like comparing Aphex Twin to George Strait.

Why do some people prefer Daft Punk to Led Zepplin? Or Tchaikovsky, Frank Sinatra, Taylor Swift, Bolt Thrower, Sex Pistols, Tupac or any other artist?

People like what they like and are interested in what they're interested in.

A thousand people could post intellectual insights into their personal preferences but a thousand more could cite the exact same arguments as reasons why they don't like the same music. It's just part of the colourful tapestry of human culture.

People's individual preference is a thing, but it does not explain anything.

But one can seek to understand the aesthetics of something none the less.

You cannot explain it though.

I could say I'm drawn to Aphex Twin because it all sounds really diverse but someone else would say they disagree and prefer rock music because Aphex Twin sounds really samey.

The problem with conversations about personal preference is it's not a rational decision. You either like something or you don't. Someone could try to intellectualize why they like something but ultimately that reasoning only applies to them.

Then why talk about it at all? I disagree with this argument. It has observable qualities, and those qualities can be discussed. Preference is one thing, but there's more to discussions about art than what one prefers.

I agree however the question asked was specifically about preference.

try to think of it as an artist with complete and total mastery of rhythm and electronic music production at play. play being the key word here-- he's having fun

1) I love Daft Punk. 2) His discography is so vast compared to Daft Punk, everything from prepared piano, ambient, acid techno, drill core, IDM/Braindance.

lots of different niche genres, but they all sound like him. you hear an AFX some and you're like, yep, that's RDJ."

I feel the same way but about Daft Punk.

I guess different strokes for different folks…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com