Home
sign up| features / music interview |
 content by: editor |
 ask squarepusher! - page two
page 2 of 5 4.Theoriginallogboy asks: There seems to be two camps of fans, one for the bass noodlings and one for the 303 action. I prefer the electronica-edged stuff, yet I can see the benefits of the challenges, the compromise, the new directions you can take such fans in when you turn out a record that is more from a bass guitar perspective. What's your opinion on the relationship between the more traditional aspects and the more modern electronica aspects of your music? Squarepusher: Is it possible to have an opinion of one's “fundamental project”? (Borrowed from Sartre.) Is it not the “fundamental project” that determines opinion? It would be like having an opinion of your hands, or comparing your mind to your face. 5. oscillik asks: With a lot of “pop” music lately seeming to borrow more and more from yourself, and people like Aphex Twin and others who are prominent in this rather broad electronica genre - basically using similar techniques - how do you feel about this? Do you view it as the ultimate in flattery, or does it annoy the hell out of you? Squarepusher: Take the example of, say, some sort of synthesis method. The first instances of this method might have been found in academic music produced in the confines of a university faculty, possibly in music written by the pioneers of that particular method. Thus, here it is represented in its “purest” form. That music may then be picked up by somebody like Aphex or me who may be interested but not explicitly involved in such matters. Hence this method may crop up in a somewhat more “applied” form. Certainly in my case it is only a passing concern to exemplify approaches to synthesis and thus I would use it with accordingly less respect. From here, it may in turn be picked up on and diluted further by more mainstream artists who find themselves interested in my work and so on, until it ends up on a mobile phone advert. As I see it, people will tend to defend their position in this chain, rehearsing the same old arguments. The positions range from the pop artist being people- or audience-centred, to the academic who is idea -centred. This is obviously a generalisation, but it seems to be a serviceable one. And of course, justifying one over the other is an empty exercise as without ideas people would be animals; without people, ideas would have nothing to conceive of them.  It seems that getting annoyed about the borrowing of ideas relates to notions of power and influence in the musical sphere. Who would care if somebody completely insignificant borrowed an idea? If, on the other hand, it is borrowed by somebody with much more commercial appeal it could be potentially irritating as credit will inevitably be given to them and not the innovator. In this sense, the problem could be seen as preventing well-intentioned individuals from getting their deserved reward (ie, money, reputation) for their labours. On this view it seems difficult to defend plagiarism. Unfortunately or otherwise, it seems the overall liveliness of our musical environment seems to thrive on precisely these activities, thus anyone's standpoint on this will relate to a more general sense of ethics and social justice. What is more important? Individual well-being, or overall cultural health? It seems a cruel reality that lively culture depends on a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the people that contribute to it. I personally couldn't care less about people borrowing ideas as I really don't have any sense of owning them in the first place. 6. Eodnoise asks: What do you think about electronic music these days? Is there anything that tickles your fancy much, do you feel like it's evolving like it "should"? What about other types of music? How important is “revolutionizing” sound and genres to you when it comes to releasing new stuff, and how do you think artists are coping with this demand from a lot of fans these days? Personally, I just make whatever I want, but there seems to be pressure to break through the avant-garde of contemporary music every time one of the “big boys” release something new; like you, Aphex, Autechre, Boards, Plaid, Vibert – whatever. Squarepusher: This is quite a few questions - forgive me for concentrating on just a couple of them. It seems commonplace in the world of electronica for a musician to say that they make what they want to make. In saying this one says that they are not bound by the concerns of others in the approach to composition. Personally, I find this idea nonsensical. It may be the case that someone's work is very different in the manifold aspects which we hear in music, such as its harmonic detail, production aesthetic, playing style etc. Nonetheless, these differences are surely prompted as reactions to existing musical works. A composer, at best, works in relation to rules and conventions. Never does he escape them. Never was a piece of music composed according to hermetically set rules. If it was, then it is by that fact meaningless, given that meanings can only be accumulated socially. Music's origins are as a social activity and it retains this heritage today. Thus there is never a true “doing what you want” because your actions always, but always, relate to other people - whether that is ignoring, disrespecting, questioning or affirming.  Regarding “revolutionizing” sound, if people who listen to my work and other people's work whom you mention were genuinely concerned with sonic innovation, they would more likely turn to the pioneering work carried out in electronic music research centres. It is here that sonic innovation can be heard in its rawest form. What I think that I am good at is presenting some of these innovations in a more generally comprehensible context, which often involves mixing new ideas with other musical aspects that are centuries old. The question is to what extent these innovations are watered down in attempting to make them comprehensible, which in turn relates to how much you care about educating people about sonic innovation - the extent to which you think it is worthwhile affects the amount to which you will compromise an idea's purity. I think that the broader "electronica" scene enjoys an "aesthetic" of progress without really wanting the hardcore undiluted detail. That is not necessarily bad, but I think much of the pretension to progress is thus misplaced. As far as coping with demands from fans, I think that if the demands of any fan were coherent enough to be worth listening to, they would probably already be making their own music. As far as anybody else's demands go, tough shit if they're not satisfied - have a go yourself if you’re that bothered!  page threeback to page one
 comments
Read members' comments related to this music.
|
 |
related info
 useful links
note: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
music  music archive Watch music sessions and interviews from 2002 to 2008. books  books and comics archive Author interviews and reviews from 2002 to 2008. |
send to a friend
ask squarepusher
access 1000s of articles