Is Grimes the new Aphex Twin?

>>74372414
You couldn't let it die

>Aphex Twin, a very innovative and influential electronic artist
>being compared to Grimes, a talentless hack who has done nothing new and doesn't shower
no

they are so dissimilar? even if you like her why would you say that

>>74372477
>a talentless hack who has done nothing new and doesn't shower
Lol projecting much?

Nah, Daniel Lopatin is contemporary Aphex Twin

Short answer: no

Long answer: Fuck no

post her windowlicker

>>74370878
good post

>>74370878
How has Grimes innovated?

>>74372477
>>Aphex Twin, a very innovative artist
you can't seriously believe this

>>74372696
by being true to herself

>>74372718
rmmt

>>74372703
tyler the creator invented hip-hop

>>74370878
You mean an overrated hack who's core fanbase is >eletronic music began in 92, and hasn't made an original track in 16 years? Grimes is lightyears ahead of this hack.

>>74372787
Ouch. Aphex's past work is still great, though.

>>74372696
By fusing synthpop with many other genres and creating her own sound in the process. Basically no one sounds like her.
>inb4 a random list of synthpop artists

>>74372703
saw 85-92 was fresh as fuck when it came out
the ambiance he created was amazing for the time

I won't deny that artists like 808 State did something similar, but he was surely special and created somewhat layered songs with equipment that could barely do that. He sort of broke away from the dance floor aspect of artists that did the "ambient techno" (for lack of a better term) stuff, you can still dance to Pacific State or Voodoo Ray for instance, but I can't quite think of anyone that did the same that he did with saw 85-92.
I don't quite like his other works honesty, but in my mind Autechre and a few others did everything Richard tried to do before, and even better most of the time. Not to take away from his talent though.

>>74372787
>Grimes is lightyears ahead of this hack.
this isn't even sad.
it is just cute.

>>74372607
Did Lopatin make something like this https://clyp.it/iyflio5a ?

>>74372787
I mean I don't deny that most of """IDM""" (shitty term) fanbase is people that don't like electronic music or are ">tfw to intelligent for the dance floor", but I will always defend saw 85-92

>>74372787
>eletronic music began in 92
there are people who actually balieve this? even the title of the album is SAW 85-92...

>>74372893
I have a feeling you're really mad right now. I'm not that anon, btw. Just admit that Grimes is great.
>>74372658
Kill V. Maim? Maybe she didn't make that kind of song yet.

>>74372861
That's not innovative.

>>74372862
see >>74372952

File: image.png (57KB, 652x324px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 652x324px

>>74372896
Big Grimes fan here. SAW 85-92 is an incredible album, even now. Grimes was influenced by it big time. I'm glad she was influenced by such a legend.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2014/09/grimes-shares-bedtime-mix-featuring-aphex-twin-and-portishead-listen/

Also:
>Pitchfork: I feel like there's something patently feminine about the way Visions sounds.

>Claire Boucher: I hope not. I don't want to think it's patently girly. Vocally it is, because that's where my capabilities lie, and my influences as far as pop goes are female stars. But production-wise and instrumentally, my biggest influences are primarily men: Aphex Twin, the Dungeon Family, OutKast, that kind of shit.

http://pitchfork.com/features/interview/8774-grimes/

>>74372952
It is.
>innovative: introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.
Grimes is as creative as 50 artists put together.

>>74372963
To counter my point i'd be better to show an artist that did the same as saw 85-92 before RDJ.
I'm willing to agree that he is not all that innovative, because all his other works take ideas from other experimental artists (Autechre, Squarepusher, mu-Ziq (kinda), Mouse on Mars, etc...), but I find it really hard to come up with an artist for saw 85-92, honestly.

>>74373080
But she didn't introduce any new ideas, since those genres already existed, as did the fusion of them and other genres.

i listened to a few grimes songs just now and it sounded like ok'ish pop music.

>>74373122
She introduced new ideas. The genres existed but not in the form of her music. She twisted those old ideas into something new and added her own ideas on top of that. That's innovative.
Let's pick a standard Grimes song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oqxz6hpGbs
I listened to a truckload of music and I never heard something like this. Do you know anything similar to it?

>>74373192
it sounds the same as most pop music these days to me

>>74373192
The way that the drums and the bass works reminds me of Blue Monday, as well as every other synthpop song.
And if you're going to say that she's innovative because nothing has existed "in the form of her music", then every artist that isn't a cover band is innovative, and the term is meaningless.

>>74373172
You listened to her poppy songs which are fantastic anyway. Try her experimental ones:

Experimental Mixtape (1 hour 13 min)
http://www80.zippyshare.com/v/qvISPUoA/file.html

01 Orphia
02 SCREAM
03 Dream Fortress
04 Venus in Fleurs
05 Omega
06 Caladan
07 Favriel
08 Beast Infection
09 Claire Boucher - Behavior
10 (Unknown Title) (Parc & Van Horne, Montreal 2010)
11 Colour of Moonlight (Antiochus)
12 Hallways
13 Grisgris
14 Intor / Flowers
15 Gambang
16 Sagrad пpeкpacный
17 Gloam
18 Rasik
19 Avi
20 Fifteen Minutes To
21 Urban Twilight
22 Improvisational Jam (CKUT.ca Radio 2010)

Maybe you'll be surprised.

>>74372862
>>74373090
>pards still thinking saw 85-92 was the first of its kind
weeeeeeeeeew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43OADtsBOZo

>>74373259
Scream is one of her poppiest tracks yet. It's as inaccessible as any song on Yeezus.

>>74373285
>the first album chronologically when you go to the genre page for Ambient Techno on RYM
fantastic album tho

>>74373259
why is there a russian song title?

>>74373221
Which song(s)?
>>74373225
Just a part of the song reminds you of BM. But what about the whole song? What about a song with that kind of loop and those vocals and that melody? Not an identical song, but a similar one.
>And if you're going to say that she's innovative because nothing has existed "in the form of her music", then every artist that isn't a cover band is innovative, and the term is meaningless.
Just give me a song like Circumambient. It you think that song is nothing special it should be very easy.

>>74373285
black dog has like 20% of the charm afx has

>>74373311
She loves Russian. She has Ukrainian origins and she speaks a bit of Russian. Also she's a big fan of Russian classical music, Dostoyevsky and old films.

>>74372718
that's not innovation

>>74373286
Scream, poppy? Most people scream in horror when they hear that song. You're just accustomed to that style, that's all.

>>74373315
>Just a part of the song
You mean the backing track for the majority of the song? Yeah OK.
>What about a song with that kind of loop and that melody?
>not an identical song
I don't know how I'm going to give you a song with that melody without them being identical.

All she did was take elements used before (which I explained), and then added her voice (which is once again, not a new idea, as high voices have been used in music before) to it, and used a different melody. As I stated before, if you're going to call her innovative for using that specific melody, loop, and vocals, then the term becomes meaningless.

>>74373354
wow you sound really into her

>>74373377
>most people scream in horror
Yes, the same people who would scream in horror at a pop rap album like Yeezus. Total normies.

>>74373300
try finding this one on rym
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWlThbHQm4
>>74373327
not as consistent, but they have their moments that i would consider on par
but my point is most tend to hail 85-92 as the first of its kind, where its actually just a very, very good example of the genre
theres many that were doing similar before hand

>>74373633
Damn, this is awesome. What's the release name?

>>74373703
art1 compilation on applied rhythmic technology

>>74373754
Thank you so much

>>74373440
Let's face it, you just can't provide a similar song to Circumambient. We had this discussion before and you mentioned BM's bassline too. Some parts of her songs remind you of other songs but you DON'T KNOW a whole song like Circumambient. Why? because that song is ORIGINAL.

>>74374158
>Some parts
It's the entire backing track, you dip
She created no new style. I don't even know why I'm replying to you because I'm pretty sure you're going to loop your argument again.

>>74372607
Lopatin is the contemporary Art of Noise

>>74372895
Needs less muddy drum mixing and more acid

>>74374216
>It's the entire backing track, you dip
It's not, you dip. They are very different. Here's the proof: https://clyp.it/f3xnbunr

Different tempos, different beats, different synth melodies. You must be deaf if you believe they're similar.

>>74374612
Did you seriously think that I said that the backing tracks are the same? I was correcting you because you said that I thought that "some parts" of the song sound similar when the entire backing tracks sound the same. And no, the tempos are similar, the beats are nearly in the same time, and no shit the melodies are different.

No.
You're either joking or fucking retarded.

Grimes will never have a legacy even never as good as RDJ. Or have enough success, influence and experiment as much as RDJ

>>74374612
Holy shit, you just proved his point. Grimes' tune is the same, just played out over about 4x the space as the Blue Monday riff

>>74374679
>the tempos are similar
Are you serious? Circumambient is significantly slower and more syncopated. The vibe is different between these 2 songs: BM sounds more optimistic and upbeat, CA sounds more disjointed and industrial-ish.

Every time i think of Grimes, all i can remember is her screaming over that song. lol just she pops into my head and AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH lol

>>74374794
Maybe not on the same level but close enough. Also she's clearly the best female artist in the electronic music by far.

>>74374922
It's not the same. Those riffs are different to each other. The beats are clearly different. You must be trolling.

>>74375043
The tempo of the drum beats are similar. Also, if you think that the vibe matters, then every song with a happy vibe counts.

>>74375075
Try this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiVPvFy69NY
The first version of Scream.

>>74374922
>Grimes' tune is the same
Different anon. Serious question - are you deaf? Because how else could you POSSIBLY mistake those two particular songs for each other? Especially in terms of timbre.

>>74375107
The riffs are similar, and that's what you ask for.

Just how fucking BADASS Circumambient live is?
That messing around with that synth at the beginning is pure ear candy. She should do electro industrial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12xiZfRiqs

>>74375137
They're not. They sound really different. You can't confuse them even in 1000 years. Maybe you have some issues with your hearing.

File: 1433273923649.jpg (61KB, 580x500px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 580x500px

>>74375128
Thanks, but no thanks.

>>74374612
>You must be deaf if you believe they're similar.
Can you hear it now?
https://clyp.it/woha3tgq

>>74375182
>I'm going to attack you so I don't have to admit that my waifu didn't do anything special

>>74375223
>I'm going to attack you
Different anon (this is my only other post ITT so far >>74375135 ) What's with this taking everything people say super personally? And yeah - anyone who CAN actually hear and has also heard both Circumbambient and Blue Monday is gonna give you a wtf response if you're seriosuly gonna claim they sound like the same song. How could you possibly confuse them for each other? (which is what would tend to happen if they actually sounded significantly alike.)

>>74375219
They're not similar at all. The beats don't align and the actual synth sounds are clearly different. At best it's a slight similarity because both songs are based on electronic beats. I couldn't confuse them at all. At least you tried.

>>74375329
I'm not even going to bother since I've already made a response to this exact opinion

>>74375338
not an argument

>>74375329
I think he confused them because of the beats. But Blue Monday is clearly flowing like a river while Circumambient is like heavy machinery. That Circumambient loop seems simple but it's so effective. She's a music genius who can make a whole song based on a strong loop.

>>74375404
Both flow well, actually. The only even kinda industrial part of Circumambient is the drums, and even they aren't that industrial.

>>74375338
Here, try this. I played over Circumambient, then played Blue Monday right after. The progression is the exact same.
https://clyp.it/likhqvfs

>>74375488
Yeah, the length of the notes seems to be the core distance here.

>>74375429
Indeed, they flow well but Circumambient has those big spaces between the riffs' attack which make the song seems heavier than it is.

>>74375509
Same progression, but different duration means not at all similar. Got it

>>74375526
No, I'm agreeing with you, I've been the one who brought up New Order from the start

>>74375523
Yeah, heavier than it is, so it's sort of a pseudo-industrial song. Not even saying that that's a flaw, since I like the song.

>>74372604
But he's not aphex twin?

>>74375429
>The only even kinda industrial part of Circumambient is the drums
Personally I'd say that there are a minimum of three specific things in that song that bring the word industrial to mind.
1. The harshness of the drums (like you said.)
2. The one overly saw-toothy synth sound with all the funky modulations on it.
3. The way that massive numbers of vocal stems tend to gang up on each other and collide with the harshness of the drums on strong beats for an even harsher effect. If you watch videos (especially early ones) of Grimes playing that song live you can clearly see that she "plays" the vocal stems themselves off of a sampler as if they were themselves drum samples on a drum pad. Imo it's a very neat use case desu.

>>74375488
>Helping a tone-deaf anon
Lame. They don't similar no matter how hard you try to prove the impossible. Also stretching the BM song to fit your "agenda" is stupid. Judge the songs for how they really are (the original versions). If you need to modify the songs in any way to prove your point you failed.

Its a fck joke right ?

>>74375595
>if you make small changes to each song and they sound similar then they don't really sound similar
The point is that with minor changes, you can make the songs sound almost exactly the same, therefore, they're similar. Also, it's kind of silly to call someone lame for calling you tone-deaf when you've done nearly the same.

>>74375595
8/10 troll

>>74375488
>>74375526
>Helping a tone-deaf anon
Top kek. Is this clip an attempt to prove that Circumambient and Blue Monday are based on the same chord progression? Because if so... I have some bad news for you: they aren't.

Blue Monday's main progression:
III - VII - i [x3]
IV* - VII - i

Whereas Circumambient's main progression is:
VI - I* [enharmonic to the root!!!] - III - IV*

* marked chords are enharmonic to the respective song's scale and have no business being there, music theory-wise.

>>74375889
Scale progression, not chord progression. Hope the rest of Intro to Music Theory 1001 goes well for you, though

>>74375509
>>74375558
see
>>74375889
Again, I'm not the anon you people seem to determined to have a knowledge-less fight with about music. And I'm also a BIG New Order/Grimes fan. Just... if you think those two songs sound really similar... I don't know what else to tell you other than that there seems to be something off about your hearing.

>>74375959
>those two songs sound really similar
The original contention was that they sound similar. Not that they sound *very* similar or beyond. Don't move the goal post just because they're right

>>74375915
>Scale progression, not chord progression.
Hence why wrote each song's basic chord structure using functional harmony terms for the scale degrees from which they are built. The only way you could say with a straight face that these songs sound more than passingly alike is if you haven't actually listened to them.

>>74376017
see
>>74376052

>The original contention was that they sound similar.
Only in a similar vein to how the Beatles sound similar to the Rolling Stones. Which is to say - from a very casual listener perspective - perhaps.

>>74376052
>>74376110
>Hears similarity in music
>Compares things that aren't even being discussed to show that the tunes don't sound alike
Ok

File: grimes_keyboard_fail.jpg (90KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1080x720px

>>74376245
>Compares things that aren't even being discussed
>mfw I'm a neo-classical music composer/performer with a working salary as a musician and I'm surrounded by musically illiterate super-fans
Lol far be it from me to inject actual factual information about what's being discussed into the conversation. Good luck on the whole blind-leading-the-blind act you people seem to have going here.

>>74376499
All you did was prove that the chord progressions aren't the same, not that the songs don't sound similar. No idea what the other anon who claimed that the chord progressions sound the same was talking about, wasn't me.

>>74376641
*chord progressions are the same
I understand why he would think that by ear, they do share two chords, although that's a bit of a stretch

>>74373354
oнa шкypa

>>74376641
I didn't "prove" anything. All I did was describe how two obviously different sounding things sound different from each other (using words, since that seems to carry more weight with a lot of people - as bizarre as that is given that we're talking about sound here) because I was honestly dumbfounded that people ITT appeared to honestly not be able to hear the difference.

...whatever. It's too late for this - I've got gigs tomorrow.

peace out

>>74376980
>chord progressions are the only factor in proving song's similarities
well that's all that you gave us, so