Alright, so we're nearing the end of the first month and I'd have to say it went rather well, all things considered. Before November hits I want to push out three more math rock posts (One general and two more band-focus-thingies), so expect those to come very soon. I've already got a genre in mind for the next month but I think I'll try to be a lot less ambitious from now on and just do more "showing" than "telling," otherwise I'm never going to have time to talk about anything else around here.
Which leads me into my next point, where does your interest lie so far (You being the concrete audience member within the nebulous crowd, I want you specifically to tell me)? I've only done two philosophy posts so far, but I'm trying not to drown the blog in them (And I'm admittedly also waiting for a bit more participation, only one person has really taken the bait so far). I think if there is more dialogue going on then we can keep this slower pace, so that everything can work itself out organically, but if this is just going to remain a soapbox I'm fine with pushing out a higher quantity of those posts.
Boardgaming... hasn't taken off. The problem here is that while I spend more time on BGG than on facebook (And anyone who has added me on facebook knows how much time I spend there) I'm not really sure what to talk about in such a one-sided presentation. I have a couple ideas for some stand-alone posts in the nearish future (One requires a bit of a time commitment and the other requires a second set of hands, but I'll get around to them soon enough) but I'd really like for there to be a more consistent way to work it into the flow information, seeing as it's supposedly one of the "big three" themes here. Would anyone be interested in a "what looks cool" sort of thing where I just pick out a game that I think looks cool (Things I don't have yet, in other words, as with the size of my current collection this series wouldn't last long) and talk about it a bit? Maybe I could also write reviews every now and then. I don't know, maybe it'll work itself out somehow.
On a more general note, my posts are full of typos and other errors. In all fairness, that's because I almost always write these either very late at night (Or early in the morning, depending on perspective) or when I'm in some sort of rush (Even at this moment I'm expecting a call in ~3 minutes. At some point in this paragraph I'm going to stop writing for like four hours and then come back to it and you'll have absolutely no idea when it occurred in the text. Isn't that awesome?), but I'd still like to avoid it as much as possible. I'm aware of a couple of things that need to be fixed but if you see any please let me know. Those things but me.
And I guess that's more or less it, actually. Please comment if you've got any opinion on... well, any of that. Also, I'm going to look into figuring out hyperlinks so that the music threads will be more user friendly but in the meantime it's easy enough to just browse with two windows (Just paste the links into the second window, as I'm sure you already know). Apparently the comment system here is a bit wonky as well, so I'll get that figured out and do a short blurb on how it works in an upcoming post just in case anyone is having troubles (I know of at least one person that is, so this isn't purely unfounded rationalization).
Anyways, stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Second math rock band - Shellac
Oh, you're in for a treat. Shellac. Is. Awesome. Last time we talked about Slint, a math rock band with heavy post-rock leanings and an acoustic, low-key aesthetic (If you missed that, do yourself a favor and backtrack a bit). Shellac is not that.
There is another subgenre of rock music, noise rock. Noise rock is something that I'm sure we'll get to in great detail some other month (How could we not?), but it's important to mention it here because noise rock and math rock often cross paths. Remember Yowie and how abrasive and angular their sound was? That's the sort of style you get when these two genres collide, although often you'll get a sound focused more on repetition and groove than spastic madness (Actually, there was a Slint song in that last blog that was a good example, "Carol," which had the kind of driving groove we're talking about... anyways, I digress).
Shellac is one of those bands that conjoin noise rock and math rock and they do it very well. As an introduction, let's just dive into one of my favorite songs of all time. This is "Squirrel Song" by Shellac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSNDrYwptzo
Yeah, I know. Your entire world just changed a little. The first thing you'll probably notice is the choppy rhythmic structure (More specifically 3/8+6/8+3/8+5/8). The second thing you'll probably notice is the metallic tone. As for the structure, this is a common variation on the stop-start phrasing mentioned in previous posts. You take a single metric phrase and then repeat it but don't always play the whole thing. To use the riff in this song as an example, the core phrase is played in the second measure of each four measure segment (The 6/8). The first and third measures cut this phrase in half but keep everything else intact, so when they would play beat 4 of the phrase they instead play the downbeat of the next measure. Finally, the last measure of each pattern is a 5/8, only dropping the very last beat of the phrase. This isn't the only instance of this kind of composition in the genre, but it's always the one that jumps straight to mind for me.
As for the tone, a lot of that comes from Steve Albini's rather unorthodox approach to the guitar. For a clearer example of him "playing with noise" so to speak, let's look at "Copper":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H22upaG3BGs
Now, this a purely 4/4 track so it's not great for our purposes on math rock but it's a great introduction to noise rock and it should give you a better understanding of Shellac's musical direction. The last few seconds of the song are a particularly great example of what I'm talking about, it sounds less like a guitar and more like malfunctioning machinery. Which is awesome, of course.
Here's "Doris":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gW6g0jV3ZU
Not too math-y with this one, but it's got a nice groove. The main riff is in 4/4 but it's grouped in pairs and broken down as 3/4+3/4+2/4 (A very, very common rock subdivision so it's no surprise that it shows up almost constantly in this subgenre as well). The chorus takes that same idea for the first half of each phrase but then follows it up with either a measure of 6/4 or two measures of 3/4 (It feels like a six to me but the overally structure of the song implies threes), making the full progression of each phrase something like 3+3+2+3+3. At the end of the song they seem to go purely into 3/4. Also, remember polyrhythms? Note that again we have a 3-2 polyrhythm showing up in the choruses and the outro. It's a very common rhythmic motif to keep an eye (Or ear, rather) out for.
"Billiard Player Song":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-peDxKGgNbA
Another straight forward one, although notice how open and sparse the structure is (Pretty much a single riff alternated with periods of drum fills over decaying chords) and how loose they are in the beginning. It's the kind of song that you can almost tell a math rocker wrote, even though it isn't packed full of odd meters. Also, it's just a really great song in and of itself, simultaneously very bright while also melancholy.
"Ghosts":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6BTG44DWsw
Figured I'd mix things up with a live video here (Although it's such a classic tune you might as well find the album quality version as well). The meter is an alternation between 11/8 (3+3+3+2) and 13/8 (3+3+3+2+2), presented in a manner that's actually somewhat similar to the style of "Squirrel Song" above since the two patterns are the same with the exception of one being slightly longer. You could think of the 11 as a 13 that's been cut short.
"Crow": (Well, some of it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKrJhGQuBz8
Another live video. This song is entirely in 3/4 and is yet another example of the 3-2 polyrhythm. Notice also how the drummer flips the "2" at around 1:30ish, and how the whole affair is very sparse and tribal (Steve barely touches his guitar).
"Wingwalker":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pEc8o1qWkA
This song is in 6/4 (Except possibly the section of noise which is probably in free time). However, the melodic guitar leads at the beginning and end of the piece are in 4/4, which creates an interesting disconnect as the patterns fail to resolve together and the guitar seems to hang out in space for a bit. You might recall that this is called a polymeter. If you don't, now you know.
And I think that's a decent place to call it quits for now. Unlike Slint (Who unfortunately only gave us a handful of songs), Shellac has a decently sized discography so I urge you to look further into their work if any of this interests you. Most of it tends more towards grooving 4/4 pieces but there is a sizable chunk of mathiness throughout, I believe.
Hope you enjoyed it.
There is another subgenre of rock music, noise rock. Noise rock is something that I'm sure we'll get to in great detail some other month (How could we not?), but it's important to mention it here because noise rock and math rock often cross paths. Remember Yowie and how abrasive and angular their sound was? That's the sort of style you get when these two genres collide, although often you'll get a sound focused more on repetition and groove than spastic madness (Actually, there was a Slint song in that last blog that was a good example, "Carol," which had the kind of driving groove we're talking about... anyways, I digress).
Shellac is one of those bands that conjoin noise rock and math rock and they do it very well. As an introduction, let's just dive into one of my favorite songs of all time. This is "Squirrel Song" by Shellac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSNDrYwptzo
Yeah, I know. Your entire world just changed a little. The first thing you'll probably notice is the choppy rhythmic structure (More specifically 3/8+6/8+3/8+5/8). The second thing you'll probably notice is the metallic tone. As for the structure, this is a common variation on the stop-start phrasing mentioned in previous posts. You take a single metric phrase and then repeat it but don't always play the whole thing. To use the riff in this song as an example, the core phrase is played in the second measure of each four measure segment (The 6/8). The first and third measures cut this phrase in half but keep everything else intact, so when they would play beat 4 of the phrase they instead play the downbeat of the next measure. Finally, the last measure of each pattern is a 5/8, only dropping the very last beat of the phrase. This isn't the only instance of this kind of composition in the genre, but it's always the one that jumps straight to mind for me.
As for the tone, a lot of that comes from Steve Albini's rather unorthodox approach to the guitar. For a clearer example of him "playing with noise" so to speak, let's look at "Copper":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H22upaG3BGs
Now, this a purely 4/4 track so it's not great for our purposes on math rock but it's a great introduction to noise rock and it should give you a better understanding of Shellac's musical direction. The last few seconds of the song are a particularly great example of what I'm talking about, it sounds less like a guitar and more like malfunctioning machinery. Which is awesome, of course.
Here's "Doris":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gW6g0jV3ZU
Not too math-y with this one, but it's got a nice groove. The main riff is in 4/4 but it's grouped in pairs and broken down as 3/4+3/4+2/4 (A very, very common rock subdivision so it's no surprise that it shows up almost constantly in this subgenre as well). The chorus takes that same idea for the first half of each phrase but then follows it up with either a measure of 6/4 or two measures of 3/4 (It feels like a six to me but the overally structure of the song implies threes), making the full progression of each phrase something like 3+3+2+3+3. At the end of the song they seem to go purely into 3/4. Also, remember polyrhythms? Note that again we have a 3-2 polyrhythm showing up in the choruses and the outro. It's a very common rhythmic motif to keep an eye (Or ear, rather) out for.
"Billiard Player Song":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-peDxKGgNbA
Another straight forward one, although notice how open and sparse the structure is (Pretty much a single riff alternated with periods of drum fills over decaying chords) and how loose they are in the beginning. It's the kind of song that you can almost tell a math rocker wrote, even though it isn't packed full of odd meters. Also, it's just a really great song in and of itself, simultaneously very bright while also melancholy.
"Ghosts":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6BTG44DWsw
Figured I'd mix things up with a live video here (Although it's such a classic tune you might as well find the album quality version as well). The meter is an alternation between 11/8 (3+3+3+2) and 13/8 (3+3+3+2+2), presented in a manner that's actually somewhat similar to the style of "Squirrel Song" above since the two patterns are the same with the exception of one being slightly longer. You could think of the 11 as a 13 that's been cut short.
"Crow": (Well, some of it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKrJhGQuBz8
Another live video. This song is entirely in 3/4 and is yet another example of the 3-2 polyrhythm. Notice also how the drummer flips the "2" at around 1:30ish, and how the whole affair is very sparse and tribal (Steve barely touches his guitar).
"Wingwalker":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pEc8o1qWkA
This song is in 6/4 (Except possibly the section of noise which is probably in free time). However, the melodic guitar leads at the beginning and end of the piece are in 4/4, which creates an interesting disconnect as the patterns fail to resolve together and the guitar seems to hang out in space for a bit. You might recall that this is called a polymeter. If you don't, now you know.
And I think that's a decent place to call it quits for now. Unlike Slint (Who unfortunately only gave us a handful of songs), Shellac has a decently sized discography so I urge you to look further into their work if any of this interests you. Most of it tends more towards grooving 4/4 pieces but there is a sizable chunk of mathiness throughout, I believe.
Hope you enjoyed it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The nature of self
Alright, I know I said my next philosophy post would be another one about free will but it's not going to be. It's not that I'm not going to do that, it's just that I'm not going to do that right now. The downside is you have to wait a little, the plus side is this gives you extra time to start posting comments telling me how wrong I am. Huzzah! In all seriousness though, I do recall at least one person saying they wanted to comment but I forget who it was (So I can't remind them) and I haven't seen anything so I figure I might as well give Mr. X another few days (And then however long after that until I decide I feel like finishing what I started).
Instead, we're going to talk about something that I don't actually have any concrete ideas on yet, so this will be less of a lecture and more of a rambling discussion starter about some philosophical possibilities (Lava lamps and controlled substances are optional). That said, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this topic recently and am starting to get a few ideas in place, methinks.
Alright, so let's begin with a hypothetical question-story hybrid that doesn't really have anything explicit to say about our topic. This is something that a friend posed to me about 6 months ago, and it's certainly stuck as a rather deep point of interest: Let's say you have a boat. Over the course of some period of time, you gradually replace the various parts of the boat (Maybe it's falling into disrepair, maybe you're just fickle, doesn't matter). At the end of this period, every single piece of the boat is a different one from when you originally got the boat, but they were each replaced separately (Which is to say that you didn't tear your boat apart and then go build a totally new boat). Is that the same boat?
Think about it for a few minutes, I'll wait.
Alright, so there are a couple ways to handle this problem. Really, since it's a binary question we must provide one of two answers: yes or no. If we say it's the same boat, on what grounds are we defining "same" and "boat"? If we say it isn't the same boat, at which point did the identity of the boat change?
These aren't easy questions, certainly. To consult good old Merriam-Webster as a place to start (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/same):
So that's that. Again, nothing too concrete yet (Although you can probably tell which way I'm leaning). Commentary is more than welcome, really. Perhaps I could do a post later on with responses to any discussion that forms (Hint: there needs to be a discussion first). Aside from that possibility, it would just be really nice to hear some more minds weighing in on the matter.
Instead, we're going to talk about something that I don't actually have any concrete ideas on yet, so this will be less of a lecture and more of a rambling discussion starter about some philosophical possibilities (Lava lamps and controlled substances are optional). That said, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this topic recently and am starting to get a few ideas in place, methinks.
Alright, so let's begin with a hypothetical question-story hybrid that doesn't really have anything explicit to say about our topic. This is something that a friend posed to me about 6 months ago, and it's certainly stuck as a rather deep point of interest: Let's say you have a boat. Over the course of some period of time, you gradually replace the various parts of the boat (Maybe it's falling into disrepair, maybe you're just fickle, doesn't matter). At the end of this period, every single piece of the boat is a different one from when you originally got the boat, but they were each replaced separately (Which is to say that you didn't tear your boat apart and then go build a totally new boat). Is that the same boat?
Think about it for a few minutes, I'll wait.
Alright, so there are a couple ways to handle this problem. Really, since it's a binary question we must provide one of two answers: yes or no. If we say it's the same boat, on what grounds are we defining "same" and "boat"? If we say it isn't the same boat, at which point did the identity of the boat change?
These aren't easy questions, certainly. To consult good old Merriam-Webster as a place to start (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/same):
1
a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect —used with as
2
a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3
: corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4
: equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses
1 is difficult to gauge without seeing the final state of the boat, but for the sake of argument let's say that the boat does appear to resemble the original in the physical sense. What of it's deeper composition? What is relevance and who is the final authority regarding it? Are we to think that the primal structure, the unique atoms and molecules, which compose the object before us are not relevant to it? That strikes me as absurd, honestly. For the moment I'm going to side with saying that our boat does not hold water with definition 1.
2 I don't think I really need to explain, but I'm just going to discard it outright. We've already rigged the question in direct contradiction to this definition.
For 3 I'm not as comfortable going either way, but it seems that a line of thought similar to that used to address definition 1 could be applied here. Indistinguishable to whom is the very first question that pops into my head. I've seen many squirrels, and I'd have to say that I'd be hard pressed to distinguish between many of them. Does that mean that some of them are the "same" squirrel even if they are separate entities? Indeed, if we could supply a doppelganger of anything, would they become the "same" or is this definition only intended to apply to appearance? If that's the case, it is of no use to us and should also be cast aside.
So now all that is left is definition 4, which is the toughest one by far to deal with (Isn't it handy how they arranged them in difficulty for us? You've got to admire an organic formulation of suspense like that). Size and shape are easy to understand, but what of value and importance? Value is subjective, so its use in a supposedly concrete label is dubious at best. Importance is tougher... importance in what regard? The flow of electricity is important to my computer being powered on right now in that it is the primary (If not sole) reason that it is in fact powered on, so we appear to have some objective basis for importance. However, to say that Jens Kidman is an important member of Meshuggah is a more subjective statement (Although he totally is) and isn't useful in the way of establishing a firm label on anything. Still the definition is a string of conjunctions (Equal in size and equal in shape and equal in value and equal in importance) so we really just need to focus on the issue of value and subjectivity in the definition. Are all subjective values equivalent in that they are all subjective or are all subjective values different in that they express individualized notions? If they are equivalent then the definition passes muster and we may be able to apply it to our boat (Concluding, at long last, that the boat is in fact the same one, by some magic of our language). However, if they are not then the entire definition breaks apart (Again, it's a four part conjunction and if even one part is false then the whole is false, it's a basic logical fact) and we are left with a boat that is not the same than the one we had before.
And what, you might be thinking, does any of that have to do with the nature of self? I'm getting there.
So as not to spend the rest of our lives watching me talk myself in circles, let's assume that "same" does not apply to the boat. We have taken boat A of component parts C1, D1, E1 and F1 and replaced the components one by one until we somehow arrive at boat B of component parts C2, D2, E2 and F2. Now, where did the change occur? At some point we have a boat (Let's use x as a generic variable) of component parts C2, D1, E1 and F1. Is this boat A or boat B? Both? Neither? Perhaps boat x will take on a different identity with each shift; so we have boat G of component parts C2, D1, E1 and F1, then boat H of component parts C2, D2, E1 and F1, then boat I of component parts C2, D2, E2 and F1, and finally boat B from above. It seems almost that any change would disqualify a boat from being taken as the "same" boat, as it is now fundamentally different in some compositional manner.
So now what? Well, for the sake of fairness, let's apply all of those concepts to you. If we take you A of component parts C1, D1, E1, F1 and G1 (Apparently you're made of more than a boat in this blog's fantasy world) could we derive you B by replacing each of those parts one at a time? Note that I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying that if this were the case and that we could actually replace all of your components, could we arrive at a you that is no longer the same as the original you? What if we replaced one of those components? If you allowed it for the boat (Which I have no idea, yet), you must allow it for yourself.
Now let's cut to the chase: the universe is currently replacing your components at the very moment you're reading this. You're composed of particles and one thing particles do is move around, they trade places and shift and generally have quite a rowdy time. Two objects in close contact with each other trade particles and they do so frequently. So, while it is not necessarily the case that each of your components will be replaced, nor is it necessarily the case that any of your components will be replaced (Perhaps they just switch positions, although I think this is so unlikely as to be physically impossible in any practical sense), it is most certainly the case that some or all of your components are capable of being replaced. Given everything from above, does this indicate that you are no longer you A but actually something closer to you ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZC (There should be way more "Z"s, I'm just lazy)? What does that really mean?
Let's return to the boat. So maybe it isn't the same boat, but do we really perceive a difference? More importantly, what is a boat? It's made up of physical objects, right? Do those physical objects cease to be themselves and become subsumed into some nebulous concept of "boat" once we affix them to the whole? What about the particles making up those objects, do they cease to be individual particles and become subsumed into a nebulous concept of "steering wheel" at some point? What about this "universe" thing, it's made up of components too, right? Do all of those components cease to be individuals and merely part of the concept "universe" instead?
It seems to me that the issue is largely one of perception. We perceive objects and consider them to be whole unto themselves, but the reality is that they are made up of components, each of which we would also consider to be whole unto itself. Since there is a certain point at which we cannot really perceive things unaided (And even then the regression continues down to... quarks at the moment, yes?) it seems that there is nothing which we directly perceive that is a truly whole and defined entity. In other words, when you look at a rock you're look at a mass of components that you can't individually perceive and the perception of the rock itself is in a sense merely an illusion. There is no such complete, whole entity as a "rock." Or at least, that appears to be the case.
And of course, this would have to apply to humans and other animals as well. When you look at me, you're seeing an illusory figure composed of imperceptible parts, one that is constantly in a flux of gaining and losing components. And the same would be true of when I look at you. What then can we say of "self"? Are we truly reasonable in concluding that there even is such a thing?
So that's that. Again, nothing too concrete yet (Although you can probably tell which way I'm leaning). Commentary is more than welcome, really. Perhaps I could do a post later on with responses to any discussion that forms (Hint: there needs to be a discussion first). Aside from that possibility, it would just be really nice to hear some more minds weighing in on the matter.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
First math rock band - Slint
Alright, so I've totally lagged behind on my posting but that's ok, we've still got a bit of time left in the month. This post will be the first to focus on a single band, in this case Slint, and I hope to knock out a couple more before November hits us (I've already decided on the next genre and I think you'll all just love it. Or hate it. You'll have a disposition towards it, which will fall upon some sort of continuum). Also, I botched one of the links in the "assorted songs" post but I've gone back to edit it and it should be correct now, so if you were totally confused for one of the We Insist! paragraphs that might be why.
Mmkay, so Slint. Slint is... amazing. And that's a scientific fact. But, more than that Slint is a great study in early math rock, being one of the bands focused more on organic composition than worrying about making sure everything is using the right wrong numbers. In a previous post we already listened to their song "Nosferatu Man" so if you missed that, go back and un-miss it, and we'll continue by just repeating that process with a few other songs by them.
First we've got "Breadcrumb Trail," the opening track off of their ground breaking album Spiderland (Which "Nosferatu Man" is also on, as well as most songs we're about to go over):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MBGwzEhMc
Right off the bat we're given a gently phrased 7/4 guitar riff to set the stage. You can also think of it as 4/4 + 6/8, with the 6/8 phrased as 3+3, which is important as the bulk of the center of the song shifts to mostly straight 6/8 meter. More specifically, the change occurs at ~1:24 in the video. Notice also that while the section is in mostly groups four 3s (Two bars of 6/8, each 3+3 with the second group accented) there are also some five group phrases mingled in, which we could take to be a shift to 15/8 meter, a 6/8 bar followed by a 9/8 bar, two 6/8s followed by a 3/8, or perhaps most simply we could just write out the entire section in a 3/8 time signature (Although the compound lilt of the rhythm suggests otherwise, but since we haven't gotten into compound time yet let's just ignore that point of theory for the moment). All of that probably sounds a bit complex, or at least more complex than you're used to thinking in terms of musical rhythm, but instead of worrying about that just listen to it and you'll likely find that even if you have no idea what the musical theory behind the section is it still sounds quite natural and easy.
Later down the line they start to mix in brief sections of 4/4 time, where we also get another glimpse of the stop-start compositional style of math rock in play. Note how some of the "open" measures aren't the same duration of the others, without prior experience with the song it's easy to become misled about when the next downbeat is coming (Which is par for the course in this genre, something to keep in mind).
Eventually they get to a point where they are alternating the 4/4 rock measures with 3/4 "open" measures before making a return to the original 7/4 motif of 4+3. I think one of the greatest qualities of this particular song are how it manages to make a moderately intricate rhythmic structure sound perfectly "even" and I believe a lot of that has to do with how well they stay within the two basic metric ideas of 4s and 3s, rounding everything out so that it flows with the surrounding bars. The most turbulent sections of the piece are where they seem to deliberately separate the two feels, which is an interesting point to start a discussion that we may get to later on down the line (I say that a lot, I know).
Alright, moving on. Now, I'm covering Slint here as a math rock band, but that's not strictly their classification within music history. Many have made the argument that Slint is more accurately described as a post-rock band, a genre that was in formation around the same time Spiderland hit and whose modern incarnations bear a rather obvious resemblance to many of its sonic themes. Post-rock is another somewhat nebulous genre label, which boils down to "rock musicians using rock instruments to play something other than rock music, but that is still related to rock music." Now, that's a horrible definition for a label for a number of reasons but we aren't going to weigh in on that debate here. Instead we're going to listen to a few of the more ambient tracks from the album, in which the role rhythmic experimentation is diminished (And they're in 4/4 time... gasp!). So, listen to these and begin to form a vague opinion about your stance on Slint's genre classification.
"For Dinner..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bJwJaRdsDE
"Don, Aman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-T63_DK8hc
"Washer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCaf82ZFtss
Well, what did you think? Pretty amazing stuff, eh? Certainly seems a far cry from what comes to mind when you think "math rock" (Ok, when I think math rock, at least), and it's definitely close in style to modern post-rock. We'll revisit this topic later on with examples from a different band, math rock actually has a number of bridges into other genres and the borders can be very, very fuzzy sometimes. Math rock bands are also notoriously known for not really liking or adhering to the label, so it gets even more muddied when band A makes a rhythmically spastic and deconstructive album one day and a suite of 20 minute ambient tracks the next. We're often left with partial classification at best, and the point I guess I'm making is that Slint is one of those bands that we need to accept falls both within and outside the realm of math rock depending on which song you're listening to.
Now let's take a trip back in time to Slint's first album Tweez. Here we see the band aiming for a more chaotic and loose sound than their later, acoustically focused works. To start off let's look at "Pat":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9zHVlY0tmo
That was just awesome, wasn't it? It seems to be primarily (Entirely, perhaps) in 4/4 but there is so much syncopation and loose interpretation of the meter that it's almost like the time signature is removed from the equation completely. We've also got rapid shifts between riffing themes, a strange vocal loop and later on some bluesy jazz fusion noodling. This is almost a totally different beast from what Slint would later become.
"Darlene":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srFCiqbFRk
Another great example of loose rhythmic interpretation in play, with an eerie guitar lead that seems to dance awkwardly over the steady drum and bass groove and a lot a couple instances of stop-start phrasing and shifting tempo.
"Carol":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft12x0Ggzfs
This is wonderful because it sets us up for a later exploration of this musical line of thought in with math rock and noise rock intersect (And they do it oh so frequently). Aside from the plodding rhythms and thick distortion, notice how they play with the feel of the tempo in their transition between the two main sections. Also around 2 minutes in they switch to 3/4 time, a sign that even early on their sense of rhythm was more involved than just "play loose."
And that, in a nutshell, is a fairly decent overview of some key points in Slint's musical career. On a closing note, listen to the last track on Spiderland, "Good Morning, Captain." It's another 4/4 romp but this one emulates the insistent groove of tracks like "Carol" more than the early post-rock of something like "Washer." I hope you enjoyed the post, but let me know if you have any further inquiries. I didn't want to bury you in technical information that wasn't really needed but at the same time I'm afraid it might be a bit "light." Anyways, just listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoH5MPIgM7c
Mmkay, so Slint. Slint is... amazing. And that's a scientific fact. But, more than that Slint is a great study in early math rock, being one of the bands focused more on organic composition than worrying about making sure everything is using the right wrong numbers. In a previous post we already listened to their song "Nosferatu Man" so if you missed that, go back and un-miss it, and we'll continue by just repeating that process with a few other songs by them.
First we've got "Breadcrumb Trail," the opening track off of their ground breaking album Spiderland (Which "Nosferatu Man" is also on, as well as most songs we're about to go over):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MBGwzEhMc
Right off the bat we're given a gently phrased 7/4 guitar riff to set the stage. You can also think of it as 4/4 + 6/8, with the 6/8 phrased as 3+3, which is important as the bulk of the center of the song shifts to mostly straight 6/8 meter. More specifically, the change occurs at ~1:24 in the video. Notice also that while the section is in mostly groups four 3s (Two bars of 6/8, each 3+3 with the second group accented) there are also some five group phrases mingled in, which we could take to be a shift to 15/8 meter, a 6/8 bar followed by a 9/8 bar, two 6/8s followed by a 3/8, or perhaps most simply we could just write out the entire section in a 3/8 time signature (Although the compound lilt of the rhythm suggests otherwise, but since we haven't gotten into compound time yet let's just ignore that point of theory for the moment). All of that probably sounds a bit complex, or at least more complex than you're used to thinking in terms of musical rhythm, but instead of worrying about that just listen to it and you'll likely find that even if you have no idea what the musical theory behind the section is it still sounds quite natural and easy.
Later down the line they start to mix in brief sections of 4/4 time, where we also get another glimpse of the stop-start compositional style of math rock in play. Note how some of the "open" measures aren't the same duration of the others, without prior experience with the song it's easy to become misled about when the next downbeat is coming (Which is par for the course in this genre, something to keep in mind).
Eventually they get to a point where they are alternating the 4/4 rock measures with 3/4 "open" measures before making a return to the original 7/4 motif of 4+3. I think one of the greatest qualities of this particular song are how it manages to make a moderately intricate rhythmic structure sound perfectly "even" and I believe a lot of that has to do with how well they stay within the two basic metric ideas of 4s and 3s, rounding everything out so that it flows with the surrounding bars. The most turbulent sections of the piece are where they seem to deliberately separate the two feels, which is an interesting point to start a discussion that we may get to later on down the line (I say that a lot, I know).
Alright, moving on. Now, I'm covering Slint here as a math rock band, but that's not strictly their classification within music history. Many have made the argument that Slint is more accurately described as a post-rock band, a genre that was in formation around the same time Spiderland hit and whose modern incarnations bear a rather obvious resemblance to many of its sonic themes. Post-rock is another somewhat nebulous genre label, which boils down to "rock musicians using rock instruments to play something other than rock music, but that is still related to rock music." Now, that's a horrible definition for a label for a number of reasons but we aren't going to weigh in on that debate here. Instead we're going to listen to a few of the more ambient tracks from the album, in which the role rhythmic experimentation is diminished (And they're in 4/4 time... gasp!). So, listen to these and begin to form a vague opinion about your stance on Slint's genre classification.
"For Dinner..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bJwJaRdsDE
"Don, Aman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-T63_DK8hc
"Washer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCaf82ZFtss
Well, what did you think? Pretty amazing stuff, eh? Certainly seems a far cry from what comes to mind when you think "math rock" (Ok, when I think math rock, at least), and it's definitely close in style to modern post-rock. We'll revisit this topic later on with examples from a different band, math rock actually has a number of bridges into other genres and the borders can be very, very fuzzy sometimes. Math rock bands are also notoriously known for not really liking or adhering to the label, so it gets even more muddied when band A makes a rhythmically spastic and deconstructive album one day and a suite of 20 minute ambient tracks the next. We're often left with partial classification at best, and the point I guess I'm making is that Slint is one of those bands that we need to accept falls both within and outside the realm of math rock depending on which song you're listening to.
Now let's take a trip back in time to Slint's first album Tweez. Here we see the band aiming for a more chaotic and loose sound than their later, acoustically focused works. To start off let's look at "Pat":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9zHVlY0tmo
That was just awesome, wasn't it? It seems to be primarily (Entirely, perhaps) in 4/4 but there is so much syncopation and loose interpretation of the meter that it's almost like the time signature is removed from the equation completely. We've also got rapid shifts between riffing themes, a strange vocal loop and later on some bluesy jazz fusion noodling. This is almost a totally different beast from what Slint would later become.
"Darlene":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srFCiqbFRk
Another great example of loose rhythmic interpretation in play, with an eerie guitar lead that seems to dance awkwardly over the steady drum and bass groove and a lot a couple instances of stop-start phrasing and shifting tempo.
"Carol":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft12x0Ggzfs
This is wonderful because it sets us up for a later exploration of this musical line of thought in with math rock and noise rock intersect (And they do it oh so frequently). Aside from the plodding rhythms and thick distortion, notice how they play with the feel of the tempo in their transition between the two main sections. Also around 2 minutes in they switch to 3/4 time, a sign that even early on their sense of rhythm was more involved than just "play loose."
And that, in a nutshell, is a fairly decent overview of some key points in Slint's musical career. On a closing note, listen to the last track on Spiderland, "Good Morning, Captain." It's another 4/4 romp but this one emulates the insistent groove of tracks like "Carol" more than the early post-rock of something like "Washer." I hope you enjoyed the post, but let me know if you have any further inquiries. I didn't want to bury you in technical information that wasn't really needed but at the same time I'm afraid it might be a bit "light." Anyways, just listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoH5MPIgM7c
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Oh right, boardgames
It seems I've neglected to actually post anything about my third primary topic so far, which is a pretty glaring oversight all things considered. Unfortunately, I don't have anything specific to talk about at the moment so I'm just going to give a (Very, very) brief overview of the modern hobby and introduce the greatest directory/community for boardgames that I'm aware of; boardgamegeek.
Alright, types of boardgames. Now, you can break down and analyze each of the following groups, you can find countless examples of crossover games and traits, you can spend so much time thinking about this that the skimpy descriptions I'm about to provide will seem inadequate to the point of being useless. That's alright, because once you reach that point you won't need to be told about these particular distinctions anyways.
Family Games: A really, really broad category, one that doesn't really have a defining characteristic other than "be light and be accessible." We've all heard of Monopoly, Scrabble, Sorry, etc. Those are family games, games that aren't necessarily wells of deep strategic thought but make up for it by being easy to learn and low enough in intensity that everyone at the table can join in on the fun while still carrying on off-topic conversation and knitting.
Abstract Games: Another broad category, in that all games are essentially abstractions to some extent. However, this title is generally used for games that are intended to be almost purely abstract, like Chess or Go. Lot's of strategy heavy brain-burners in this category, but the core idea behind the games is generally well understood in the public consciousness due to the extremely high profile of a select few entries. If someone sees you playing Pentago or Symbol they might not have any idea what's happening but they'll probably get the gist of it by relating it to something like Connect Four or Chess.
Ameritrash: Originally intended as a slang insult for a certain family of games, this has grown to be a badge of honor for many. Ameritrash is characterized by being very theme-heavy, having lots of rules and components (Many of which tend to be made of plastic) and having direct competition between players (Often with player elimination). Risk is probably one of the most well known titles in this genre, which most people seem to have some idea about, but this category is mostly made up of games that almost nobody who isn't already somewhat aware of the modern hobby would be aware of.
Eurogames: Generally hailing from European descent (Gee, really?), euros are almost the opposite of ameritrash. Theme often takes a backseat to mechanics ("Pasted on" themes are a common complaint used by people who dislike euros), and less action-oriented territory is usually covered like farming, buying things or buying land to farm. Player interaction is also reduced in many titles (The term "multiplayer solitaire" also gets thrown around a lot), and player elimination is extremely rare, at least to my knowledge. If any game would be the "well-known" one of this group it's probably The Settler's Of Catan, which is apparently quite a huge hit in Europe and has managed to make it into stores like Toys R Us and Target in the U.S. Still, if you ran a poll I'd be willing to guess that a great many people have never heard of that game, so the genre is a bit more alien and "hobbyistish" (Totally a word) than the others we have covered.
Wargames: Ah, wargames. Risk is an early implementation of this line of thought but it's abstract and "gamey" (Turning in sets of cards to get more armies when you need them and such) to the extent that it doesn't really resemble what some would consider more "proper" wargames. Hex-tiled maps and square counters representing units is common fare here, as are thick rulebooks and charts for events and combat. Really, wargames are more like "war simulations" than other boardgames, which is where they diverge from ameritrash takes on war-themed games. Historical accuracy and detail is the name of the game here.
Dexterity games: Pretty simple concept, these are games in which dexterity plays a large role. I think everyone has an idea of what that means, games where you flick, throw or roll components to accomplish something. Of course, there tends to be a fine line between where something is a "lesser activity" sport and where it is a boardgame of sorts. Ping Pong seems to be clearly a sport, Darts is in a gray area and Sorry Sliders is clearly a boardgame.
And that's a very simplistic picture of the modern boardgaming hobby. Like I said, there is a lot of crossover between these styles both in shared traits (Victory points are a staple of eurogames but are also found in many ameritrash games and have equivalent mechanics in some family games and wargames) and in true attempts at a stylistic merger (From what I hear, games like Cyclades and Chaos In The Old World are a perfect blend of euro and ameritrash, and we're seeing lots of dexterity mechanics showing up in dungeon crawl and empire building games like Catacombs and the soon to be released Ascending Empires). Don't take this as anything more than a very quick reference to help you get a basic idea of where things are right now. Which leads us to...
Boardgamegeek! http://boardgamegeek.com/ This website is absolutely amazing, with a great community and an extremely large database with volumes of information. If you're at all interested in boardgaming as a hobby this would be the place to start.
And that's that. Hopefully I'll have something a bit more specific come to mind in the future, if not I'll have to cobble some excuse together to keep posting arbitrary nonsense... not that I do that. If you have any questions feel free to ask me, and if you're anywhere near me (Hoover or Mobile in Alabama, depending on time of year) and would like to give a game a try I'm up for it (My collection is still small, however. The only two categories I'm really missing a strong title for are wargames and dexterity games at the moment though).
Alright, types of boardgames. Now, you can break down and analyze each of the following groups, you can find countless examples of crossover games and traits, you can spend so much time thinking about this that the skimpy descriptions I'm about to provide will seem inadequate to the point of being useless. That's alright, because once you reach that point you won't need to be told about these particular distinctions anyways.
Family Games: A really, really broad category, one that doesn't really have a defining characteristic other than "be light and be accessible." We've all heard of Monopoly, Scrabble, Sorry, etc. Those are family games, games that aren't necessarily wells of deep strategic thought but make up for it by being easy to learn and low enough in intensity that everyone at the table can join in on the fun while still carrying on off-topic conversation and knitting.
Abstract Games: Another broad category, in that all games are essentially abstractions to some extent. However, this title is generally used for games that are intended to be almost purely abstract, like Chess or Go. Lot's of strategy heavy brain-burners in this category, but the core idea behind the games is generally well understood in the public consciousness due to the extremely high profile of a select few entries. If someone sees you playing Pentago or Symbol they might not have any idea what's happening but they'll probably get the gist of it by relating it to something like Connect Four or Chess.
Ameritrash: Originally intended as a slang insult for a certain family of games, this has grown to be a badge of honor for many. Ameritrash is characterized by being very theme-heavy, having lots of rules and components (Many of which tend to be made of plastic) and having direct competition between players (Often with player elimination). Risk is probably one of the most well known titles in this genre, which most people seem to have some idea about, but this category is mostly made up of games that almost nobody who isn't already somewhat aware of the modern hobby would be aware of.
Eurogames: Generally hailing from European descent (Gee, really?), euros are almost the opposite of ameritrash. Theme often takes a backseat to mechanics ("Pasted on" themes are a common complaint used by people who dislike euros), and less action-oriented territory is usually covered like farming, buying things or buying land to farm. Player interaction is also reduced in many titles (The term "multiplayer solitaire" also gets thrown around a lot), and player elimination is extremely rare, at least to my knowledge. If any game would be the "well-known" one of this group it's probably The Settler's Of Catan, which is apparently quite a huge hit in Europe and has managed to make it into stores like Toys R Us and Target in the U.S. Still, if you ran a poll I'd be willing to guess that a great many people have never heard of that game, so the genre is a bit more alien and "hobbyistish" (Totally a word) than the others we have covered.
Wargames: Ah, wargames. Risk is an early implementation of this line of thought but it's abstract and "gamey" (Turning in sets of cards to get more armies when you need them and such) to the extent that it doesn't really resemble what some would consider more "proper" wargames. Hex-tiled maps and square counters representing units is common fare here, as are thick rulebooks and charts for events and combat. Really, wargames are more like "war simulations" than other boardgames, which is where they diverge from ameritrash takes on war-themed games. Historical accuracy and detail is the name of the game here.
Dexterity games: Pretty simple concept, these are games in which dexterity plays a large role. I think everyone has an idea of what that means, games where you flick, throw or roll components to accomplish something. Of course, there tends to be a fine line between where something is a "lesser activity" sport and where it is a boardgame of sorts. Ping Pong seems to be clearly a sport, Darts is in a gray area and Sorry Sliders is clearly a boardgame.
And that's a very simplistic picture of the modern boardgaming hobby. Like I said, there is a lot of crossover between these styles both in shared traits (Victory points are a staple of eurogames but are also found in many ameritrash games and have equivalent mechanics in some family games and wargames) and in true attempts at a stylistic merger (From what I hear, games like Cyclades and Chaos In The Old World are a perfect blend of euro and ameritrash, and we're seeing lots of dexterity mechanics showing up in dungeon crawl and empire building games like Catacombs and the soon to be released Ascending Empires). Don't take this as anything more than a very quick reference to help you get a basic idea of where things are right now. Which leads us to...
Boardgamegeek! http://boardgamegeek.com/ This website is absolutely amazing, with a great community and an extremely large database with volumes of information. If you're at all interested in boardgaming as a hobby this would be the place to start.
And that's that. Hopefully I'll have something a bit more specific come to mind in the future, if not I'll have to cobble some excuse together to keep posting arbitrary nonsense... not that I do that. If you have any questions feel free to ask me, and if you're anywhere near me (Hoover or Mobile in Alabama, depending on time of year) and would like to give a game a try I'm up for it (My collection is still small, however. The only two categories I'm really missing a strong title for are wargames and dexterity games at the moment though).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Assorted Math Rock Tunes
Alright, so I've spend a lot of time since my last post trying to pick a band to showcase first but this is such a diverse genre that no single band can really do it justice in a "start here" sort of context, so instead I'm just going to throw a bunch songs from different bands at your ear-wall and hope something sticks. Plan to waste some serious time here. Sorry. (Also, I couldn't figure out how to embed the videos here. I'm going to mess around and see what happens, and if you know please tell me, but in the mean time I apologize for the links)
Ok, first let's look at some We Insist! tracks. First up is "My Own Delight"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZbG2XgNeR8
This song is in 3/4 (It sounds like it doesn't change, but it might. That's not too important right now), not a totally alien meter. Listen to the snare in the beginning though (And again later on towards the end), it's marking 2 evenly spaced beats to the measure which forms a polyrhythm. Remember, I said that odd meter was a prime characteristic of math rock but it's rhythmic experimentation in general that's key. A polyrhythm is simple to explain, it's when you have two contrasting rhythms (Like a grouping of 5 and a grouping of 3) that sound simultaneously and for the same duration, which creates a sort of tense interplay between the two parts. The polyrhythm occurring here is 3 beat feel of the time signatures against the 2 beat accenting of the snare.
You'll also notice a few points at which the music seems to break down and stall while something fills in the gaps before it picks up again (See ~28 seconds in and ~2:07). This sort of stop-start riffing is prevalent throughout the genre, and we'll get to some more extreme (And awesome sounding) cases later on. Also at 2:07 we see a slow contrasting section with a very loose sense of tempo. Contrasting sections and periods of indeterminate or loose structure are another common tool in the math rock arsenal to be on the lookout for.
Moving on to "An Architect" a more traditional sort of math rock song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubppUffEWbc
Right off the bat you should notice the odd meter of the verse riff, which is 15/8+13/8 (Phrased as groupings of 3+3+3+2+2+2 8th notes for the first bar and 3+3+3+2+2 for the second). The rest of track is standard 4/4 but notice how the lyrics of the chorus loop around on themselves. This sort of "ouroboros"-esque approach to writing isn't everywhere in the genre but it's common enough to deserve mention.
Finally by We Insist! let's look at this live video of "Half Awake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow20L73CVD4
Now, this entire song is 4/4. The meter is split into 2 beats of triplet feel (Which just means groups of 3 notes in the space where 2 would normally go, for those not used to the term) and 2 beats of standard straight 8th notes for the verses and choruses, which is pretty cool and interesting. And you'll probably also notice how everything sounds a bit "off" for a standard rock tune, like it's about to fall apart at any moment. Still, this is a pretty bad example to show you. So why did I do it? Because the drummer is playing with one arm while singing! HOLY HAT RACK!
Anyways, time to look at something a bit farther back in time, one of the bands that helped start the genre (And post-rock, which we may get into another day), Slint. First is the classic "Nosferatu Man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qg6kPtVAM4
The verses are in 5/4 and the choruses are in 6/4. GrungeRock1991's comment on the video's page itself is a pretty good guide to what's happening at which point in the song, except whenever he says 4/4 pretend he said 6/4 instead. The mistake he made is an easy one though, in that he was only listening to the drums, which do appear to be in 4/4. The guitars however are marking a consistent 3/8 pattern against that feel (1-2-rest-1-2-rest ad infinitum), and if you write the section in six then you can fit the whole ensemble into the same meter (6/4 and 12/8 indicate the same period of time, obviously since the fractions reduce the same, and 4 groups of 3/8 fit within a bar of 12/8, or 6/4). If you don't want to do that then the band is performing what is called a polymeter, which is like a polyrhythm but with time signatures where one or more voices are playing in one time signature and some other voices are playing in another time signature. And aside from all the theory goodness it's just a really, really great song.
I'm going to dedicate a whole post to Slint at some point this month, so here's Yowie with "Trina."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoq2PMJ1pGU
No, I'm not going to figure out the time signature progression of that for you (I have other things to do, like writing blog posts and talking to people about how I'm going to write some blog posts. Man, maybe this isn't going to be healthy), but rest assured that it contains numerous odd meters and that the meter itself changes often. But that's not important here. Just listen to that. No, don't chicken out on me now, nobody said this would be easy. Really listen to that. Listen to how the different instruments fly in and out of sync with one another, how the drums tear through and play every accent pattern but a standard back beat while the guitars sputter madly over head. Isn't that beautiful? Yowie is a great case in math rack, as they're one of those bands that fit firmly in the "holy crap, how many numbers did you just play?" category while also sticking with the trend of marrying noise rock into the equation (We'll get to all that later, but most noise rock-math rock crossover bands tend to be more rhythmically conservative). Just listen to it.
Thingy with "Plenty:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te__ngRG5aE
Ok, back to more familiar territory, right? This is a pretty simple song and Thingy isn't very hectic when it comes to meter, often playing entire songs in 4/4 or 3/4. This one uses groupings of 3/8 throughout but varies the between accenting 1 and not accenting 1 to create some interesting patterns (Especially right after the beginning where they create the feel of 5 for a bit). They also use hemiola in the chorus (3+3+2+2+2, like West Side Story's America) and lots of repetition. Repetition is another cool trick in the math rock toolkit, which is great for leaving some people going "wait, what?" without actually doing anything far out of the ordinary. It's like a skipping record, we've all heard it but most people aren't actively expecting it to happen, so when a band plans for it they can use that to great effect.
Rob Crow with "Kill All The Humans:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3wFZ67FxA
Rob Crow has a lot of math rock projects like this, one of them being Thingy (As you probably already knew, given the title of the last video). This track is primarily, or entirely, in 3/4 but he does a cool trick with the "I don't want to be a fucking robot" chorus where he starts it on beat 3 of the previous measure (Instead of waiting until the next downbeat like a normal songwriter) and then throws in a weird little accent pattern. I'm actually still scratching my head trying to figure out if it's still in 3/4 or if he changed meter (If he did, I'm thinking it's either 21/16, 11/8, or 23/16... basically something just shy of six quarter note counts). Whether or not he did though isn't the issue, it's what it sounds like and it sure as hell sounds like he's in a different rhythmic feel for that part. Also note how sections glide seamless in and out of each other, it's all very organic. Even with the unusual feel of that part it sounds like it's something that someone could have started playing naturally, it's not the lush intricacy of a Don Caballero track.
Speaking of which, here's Don Cab with "Stupid Puma:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDYl_OOcrgA
Another song with too many shifts for me to bother with figuring it all out tonight, but the central motif is 5/8 expressed as 2+3 (It starts off the piece) which is then carried through, modulated, chopped up and put back together (For example, there's a section at 0:58 where we see a bar of 5/8 alternated with 7/8, in which they go 2+3+2). Minimalism plays a huge role in their music, especially in the guitar work of Ian Willaims. Phrases are drawn out and altered multiple times over the course of a single song, sometimes with only one clear melodic idea in a whole composition. To contrast this, Damon Che pounds every voice on his kit and every available opportunity, creating an environment in which the drums take on the role of the "lead" instrument, which is a total 180 from rock standards.
Finally, here's another Don Cab tune, "The Peter Criss Jazz." I'm not going to say anything about it, just listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o_C9n0mh_M
And that concludes our brief glimpse at math rock for the moment. Hopefully you found something to enjoy in all that, but if not don't be discouraged. Math rock is such a broad and diverse genre that you can't throw a rock without hitting a band with a fairly unique style. As I said, I plan on dedicating a post to Slint at a later date (Along with some other bands who will each get their time to shine) but does anyone want me to cover another one of these groups in greater detail as well? We have a whole month to fill with this stuff, I'm very open to suggestions.
Ok, first let's look at some We Insist! tracks. First up is "My Own Delight"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZbG2XgNeR8
This song is in 3/4 (It sounds like it doesn't change, but it might. That's not too important right now), not a totally alien meter. Listen to the snare in the beginning though (And again later on towards the end), it's marking 2 evenly spaced beats to the measure which forms a polyrhythm. Remember, I said that odd meter was a prime characteristic of math rock but it's rhythmic experimentation in general that's key. A polyrhythm is simple to explain, it's when you have two contrasting rhythms (Like a grouping of 5 and a grouping of 3) that sound simultaneously and for the same duration, which creates a sort of tense interplay between the two parts. The polyrhythm occurring here is 3 beat feel of the time signatures against the 2 beat accenting of the snare.
You'll also notice a few points at which the music seems to break down and stall while something fills in the gaps before it picks up again (See ~28 seconds in and ~2:07). This sort of stop-start riffing is prevalent throughout the genre, and we'll get to some more extreme (And awesome sounding) cases later on. Also at 2:07 we see a slow contrasting section with a very loose sense of tempo. Contrasting sections and periods of indeterminate or loose structure are another common tool in the math rock arsenal to be on the lookout for.
Moving on to "An Architect" a more traditional sort of math rock song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubppUffEWbc
Right off the bat you should notice the odd meter of the verse riff, which is 15/8+13/8 (Phrased as groupings of 3+3+3+2+2+2 8th notes for the first bar and 3+3+3+2+2 for the second). The rest of track is standard 4/4 but notice how the lyrics of the chorus loop around on themselves. This sort of "ouroboros"-esque approach to writing isn't everywhere in the genre but it's common enough to deserve mention.
Finally by We Insist! let's look at this live video of "Half Awake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow20L73CVD4
Now, this entire song is 4/4. The meter is split into 2 beats of triplet feel (Which just means groups of 3 notes in the space where 2 would normally go, for those not used to the term) and 2 beats of standard straight 8th notes for the verses and choruses, which is pretty cool and interesting. And you'll probably also notice how everything sounds a bit "off" for a standard rock tune, like it's about to fall apart at any moment. Still, this is a pretty bad example to show you. So why did I do it? Because the drummer is playing with one arm while singing! HOLY HAT RACK!
Anyways, time to look at something a bit farther back in time, one of the bands that helped start the genre (And post-rock, which we may get into another day), Slint. First is the classic "Nosferatu Man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qg6kPtVAM4
The verses are in 5/4 and the choruses are in 6/4. GrungeRock1991's comment on the video's page itself is a pretty good guide to what's happening at which point in the song, except whenever he says 4/4 pretend he said 6/4 instead. The mistake he made is an easy one though, in that he was only listening to the drums, which do appear to be in 4/4. The guitars however are marking a consistent 3/8 pattern against that feel (1-2-rest-1-2-rest ad infinitum), and if you write the section in six then you can fit the whole ensemble into the same meter (6/4 and 12/8 indicate the same period of time, obviously since the fractions reduce the same, and 4 groups of 3/8 fit within a bar of 12/8, or 6/4). If you don't want to do that then the band is performing what is called a polymeter, which is like a polyrhythm but with time signatures where one or more voices are playing in one time signature and some other voices are playing in another time signature. And aside from all the theory goodness it's just a really, really great song.
I'm going to dedicate a whole post to Slint at some point this month, so here's Yowie with "Trina."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoq2PMJ1pGU
No, I'm not going to figure out the time signature progression of that for you (I have other things to do, like writing blog posts and talking to people about how I'm going to write some blog posts. Man, maybe this isn't going to be healthy), but rest assured that it contains numerous odd meters and that the meter itself changes often. But that's not important here. Just listen to that. No, don't chicken out on me now, nobody said this would be easy. Really listen to that. Listen to how the different instruments fly in and out of sync with one another, how the drums tear through and play every accent pattern but a standard back beat while the guitars sputter madly over head. Isn't that beautiful? Yowie is a great case in math rack, as they're one of those bands that fit firmly in the "holy crap, how many numbers did you just play?" category while also sticking with the trend of marrying noise rock into the equation (We'll get to all that later, but most noise rock-math rock crossover bands tend to be more rhythmically conservative). Just listen to it.
Thingy with "Plenty:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te__ngRG5aE
Ok, back to more familiar territory, right? This is a pretty simple song and Thingy isn't very hectic when it comes to meter, often playing entire songs in 4/4 or 3/4. This one uses groupings of 3/8 throughout but varies the between accenting 1 and not accenting 1 to create some interesting patterns (Especially right after the beginning where they create the feel of 5 for a bit). They also use hemiola in the chorus (3+3+2+2+2, like West Side Story's America) and lots of repetition. Repetition is another cool trick in the math rock toolkit, which is great for leaving some people going "wait, what?" without actually doing anything far out of the ordinary. It's like a skipping record, we've all heard it but most people aren't actively expecting it to happen, so when a band plans for it they can use that to great effect.
Rob Crow with "Kill All The Humans:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3wFZ67FxA
Rob Crow has a lot of math rock projects like this, one of them being Thingy (As you probably already knew, given the title of the last video). This track is primarily, or entirely, in 3/4 but he does a cool trick with the "I don't want to be a fucking robot" chorus where he starts it on beat 3 of the previous measure (Instead of waiting until the next downbeat like a normal songwriter) and then throws in a weird little accent pattern. I'm actually still scratching my head trying to figure out if it's still in 3/4 or if he changed meter (If he did, I'm thinking it's either 21/16, 11/8, or 23/16... basically something just shy of six quarter note counts). Whether or not he did though isn't the issue, it's what it sounds like and it sure as hell sounds like he's in a different rhythmic feel for that part. Also note how sections glide seamless in and out of each other, it's all very organic. Even with the unusual feel of that part it sounds like it's something that someone could have started playing naturally, it's not the lush intricacy of a Don Caballero track.
Speaking of which, here's Don Cab with "Stupid Puma:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDYl_OOcrgA
Another song with too many shifts for me to bother with figuring it all out tonight, but the central motif is 5/8 expressed as 2+3 (It starts off the piece) which is then carried through, modulated, chopped up and put back together (For example, there's a section at 0:58 where we see a bar of 5/8 alternated with 7/8, in which they go 2+3+2). Minimalism plays a huge role in their music, especially in the guitar work of Ian Willaims. Phrases are drawn out and altered multiple times over the course of a single song, sometimes with only one clear melodic idea in a whole composition. To contrast this, Damon Che pounds every voice on his kit and every available opportunity, creating an environment in which the drums take on the role of the "lead" instrument, which is a total 180 from rock standards.
Finally, here's another Don Cab tune, "The Peter Criss Jazz." I'm not going to say anything about it, just listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o_C9n0mh_M
And that concludes our brief glimpse at math rock for the moment. Hopefully you found something to enjoy in all that, but if not don't be discouraged. Math rock is such a broad and diverse genre that you can't throw a rock without hitting a band with a fairly unique style. As I said, I plan on dedicating a post to Slint at a later date (Along with some other bands who will each get their time to shine) but does anyone want me to cover another one of these groups in greater detail as well? We have a whole month to fill with this stuff, I'm very open to suggestions.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Genre of the month I: Math Rock
I've been trying to think of a way to kickstart this music thing and I think the best way to go about doing that would be by talking about the coolest, most interesting topic ever conceived: music genres. Yeah, that's right. I can already hear your pulse speeding with exuberance. Each month I plan on bringing a new genre (Or maybe even subgenre... gasp!) to the table, parsing out what it is and providing commentary off and on about what bands I think are worth checking out. And that is just... so great.
Alright, so first we've got my favorite genre of rock music ever, none other than the poorly understood yet highly influential kingdom of math rock. What is math rock? To put it in it's simplest terms, math rock is rock music that puts heavy emphasis on rhythmic experimentation, usually in the use of odd time signatures (Brief tutorial on that in a moment, for the uninitiated). Now, I know you're just dying for me to break that down more completely, so I'll do it. Just for you. You're welcome.
Alright, so the core concept is rhythmic experimentation, but why? Well, the goal of most math rock bands (At least initially, but again we'll get to that) is deconstructive. You take apart a rock song and get to see and the innards, what really makes it tick. Then you get to have fun and reconstruct everything by deliberately building something that isn't in the blueprint, but bears a striking resemblance to it. If you take a driving 4/4 rock backbeat, a math rock band will flip it several times with asymmetrical meter and leave you awkwardly bobbing along to the downbeat, then cut into a disruptive unison passage before the instruments wander off on their own again. That's part of what makes it so awesome, you can tell that you're listening to a rock song but it's all "wrong" somehow. Nothing flows like your ear expects it to (At first).
Alright, before I go any further I really need to comment on time signatures. If you don't know (And if you never studied music in a formal context, there's a pretty large chance that you don't. That's normal), a time signature specifies the rhythmic meter of the music and is represented as a fraction. The numerator tells us the number of "beats" in a measure of music, the denominator tells us the duration of each beat. So a 3/4 meter tells us that there are three beats to the measure (Think waltz) and that each beat is a quarter note, 1/4th of a whole note. Quarter notes have more or less become the "standard" beat duration in modern music, so most meters you'll come across with be x/4. Also, most modern music is felt either in 3s or 4s, so 3/4 and 4/4 are pretty much the vanilla time signatures these days.
An odd time signature is a time technically a meter with a numerator that is not divisible by 3 or 4, but in practical use it's normally any meter where the number of beats is anything other than 2, 3 or 4. 5/4, with five beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is odd. 6/4, with six beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is not odd in strict music theory but is unusual and thus considered "odd" in practice. A meter of 7/8 is another common odd time, in which there are seven beats to the bar each of which take up an eight note in duration. An 11/16 meter is not quite so common, with eleven beats in each measure and the sixteenth note getting the beat. Are you seeing the pattern? It's very simple stuff when you think about it, but for some reason the "feel" of these meters hasn't caught much mainstream traction. I'm not going to keep prattling on about this, but if someone wants me to dedicate a post or ten to time signatures, I'll totally do it.
Now, math rock makes heavy use of the aforementioned odd meters. While a standard rock song may be written in 4/4 (Likely have beats 2 and 4 accented in most measures. Listen to the snare in any song on the radio) and maybe have a short section in 3/4 if they're really adventurous, a fairly simple math rock tune might have verses in 13/8, choruses that alternate 15/8 and 29/16, and an instrumental passage or three that change meter every measure. This is the most obvious characteristic that distinguishes the genre and it is one that you should keep in mind once we stop talking and start listening.
Now, there is a lot more to the rhythmic experimentation found in math rock than just the use of odd times, but I'm going to put that aside for later in the week. If you're enjoying this just wait until we get into tuplets and polyrhythms.
Ok, that's a good enough introduction anyways, I'll pick up with the overview (And focus on a few key bands) throughout the course of the month... maybe even later tonight if the mood strikes me (And it always strikes me... so, y'know, there probably will be one). If you just can't wait, the wikipedia article on math is actually fairly informative and factually accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_rock), or at least it was the last time I looked. Also, here are a few math rock bands you might want to check out independently (I'll probably devote time to most of them, but not all and all the bands I end up covering might not be on this list. Hey, there's a lot of great stuff to pick from):
Don Caballero
Thingy
Slint
The Jesus Lizard
Shellac
Minus The Bear
June of 44
Tera Melos
We Are Knives
Sleeping People
Yowie
Hella
The Dirty Projectors
Giraffes? Giraffes!
We Followed Tigers
Sharks Keep Moving
Rodan
Dazzling Killmen
Faraquet
Drive Like Jehu
Capillary Action
We Insist!
Alright, so first we've got my favorite genre of rock music ever, none other than the poorly understood yet highly influential kingdom of math rock. What is math rock? To put it in it's simplest terms, math rock is rock music that puts heavy emphasis on rhythmic experimentation, usually in the use of odd time signatures (Brief tutorial on that in a moment, for the uninitiated). Now, I know you're just dying for me to break that down more completely, so I'll do it. Just for you. You're welcome.
Alright, so the core concept is rhythmic experimentation, but why? Well, the goal of most math rock bands (At least initially, but again we'll get to that) is deconstructive. You take apart a rock song and get to see and the innards, what really makes it tick. Then you get to have fun and reconstruct everything by deliberately building something that isn't in the blueprint, but bears a striking resemblance to it. If you take a driving 4/4 rock backbeat, a math rock band will flip it several times with asymmetrical meter and leave you awkwardly bobbing along to the downbeat, then cut into a disruptive unison passage before the instruments wander off on their own again. That's part of what makes it so awesome, you can tell that you're listening to a rock song but it's all "wrong" somehow. Nothing flows like your ear expects it to (At first).
Alright, before I go any further I really need to comment on time signatures. If you don't know (And if you never studied music in a formal context, there's a pretty large chance that you don't. That's normal), a time signature specifies the rhythmic meter of the music and is represented as a fraction. The numerator tells us the number of "beats" in a measure of music, the denominator tells us the duration of each beat. So a 3/4 meter tells us that there are three beats to the measure (Think waltz) and that each beat is a quarter note, 1/4th of a whole note. Quarter notes have more or less become the "standard" beat duration in modern music, so most meters you'll come across with be x/4. Also, most modern music is felt either in 3s or 4s, so 3/4 and 4/4 are pretty much the vanilla time signatures these days.
An odd time signature is a time technically a meter with a numerator that is not divisible by 3 or 4, but in practical use it's normally any meter where the number of beats is anything other than 2, 3 or 4. 5/4, with five beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is odd. 6/4, with six beats in each bar and the quarter note getting the beat, is not odd in strict music theory but is unusual and thus considered "odd" in practice. A meter of 7/8 is another common odd time, in which there are seven beats to the bar each of which take up an eight note in duration. An 11/16 meter is not quite so common, with eleven beats in each measure and the sixteenth note getting the beat. Are you seeing the pattern? It's very simple stuff when you think about it, but for some reason the "feel" of these meters hasn't caught much mainstream traction. I'm not going to keep prattling on about this, but if someone wants me to dedicate a post or ten to time signatures, I'll totally do it.
Now, math rock makes heavy use of the aforementioned odd meters. While a standard rock song may be written in 4/4 (Likely have beats 2 and 4 accented in most measures. Listen to the snare in any song on the radio) and maybe have a short section in 3/4 if they're really adventurous, a fairly simple math rock tune might have verses in 13/8, choruses that alternate 15/8 and 29/16, and an instrumental passage or three that change meter every measure. This is the most obvious characteristic that distinguishes the genre and it is one that you should keep in mind once we stop talking and start listening.
Now, there is a lot more to the rhythmic experimentation found in math rock than just the use of odd times, but I'm going to put that aside for later in the week. If you're enjoying this just wait until we get into tuplets and polyrhythms.
Ok, that's a good enough introduction anyways, I'll pick up with the overview (And focus on a few key bands) throughout the course of the month... maybe even later tonight if the mood strikes me (And it always strikes me... so, y'know, there probably will be one). If you just can't wait, the wikipedia article on math is actually fairly informative and factually accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_rock), or at least it was the last time I looked. Also, here are a few math rock bands you might want to check out independently (I'll probably devote time to most of them, but not all and all the bands I end up covering might not be on this list. Hey, there's a lot of great stuff to pick from):
Don Caballero
Thingy
Slint
The Jesus Lizard
Shellac
Minus The Bear
June of 44
Tera Melos
We Are Knives
Sleeping People
Yowie
Hella
The Dirty Projectors
Giraffes? Giraffes!
We Followed Tigers
Sharks Keep Moving
Rodan
Dazzling Killmen
Faraquet
Drive Like Jehu
Capillary Action
We Insist!
Concerning Free Will
Alright, I've been discussing the concept of free will with various people for a little over a year now and my line of argument and explanation is almost always the same, so I think I'll kick things off around by presenting a very basic framework of free will and determinism (My position, we'll get to it in a moment), how the two interact and how we should view the situation. (Note: Everything that follows from here on is obviously up for debate, and I in fact encourage that at every opportunity)
First, what is free will? Literally, it is having a will that is a free. In this case the "will" is volition, the conscious desire, a mental state capable of striving towards some action. "Free" means unconstrained. So, slamming it together, we get an unconstrained volition. Great. Essentially what that means is that the volition has some form of unconstrained freedom to decide upon a particular course of action. This is all probably something that you're very familiar and seems pointless, but the technical terminology is important because...
For the volition to choose between various courses of action there have to actually be various courses of action in the first place. Again, this seems obvious, but it's very important. If there is only one course of action with no other alternatives, then it cannot be said that free will enters into the equation because there aren't any choices to be made. To put it another way, if A can lead to B, C or D, then we could discuss free will (Because there are choices), but if A can only lead to B then we cannot (Because there aren't). Free will in undertaking any course of action hinges upon alternatives being present.
Now, what's all this determinism nonsense about? Determinism is the philosophical stance that posits that given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. Great. What does that mean? First, let's talk about the physically possible and the hypothetically possible. The physically possible is something that can actually occur in reality... a pretty simple concept. It was physically possible for me to start a blog and we know this because it already happened. The hypothetically possible is something that we can conceive of occurring, whether or not it actually does (Or can). It is hypothetically possible that I could start a second blog for the hell of it. It is also hypothetically possible that ostriches are all highly intelligent terrorists from mars that are waiting for the perfect time to eradicate the human race by panicking us with loud noises and flashing lights. The probability of these two hypothetical worlds becoming physical isn't important, nor is the level of absurdity involved, they're both equally hypothetical.
With me so far? Good.
Alright, do you know what the past is? That's what has already happened chronologically. Yeah, I thought you knew. Really, I did. What about the laws of nature, what are those? You probably already know that too, things like gravity, solid objects not being able to occupy the same coordinates in space and clowns existing. The funny thing about the laws of nature is that they are essentially various forms of cause and effect. If I drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity. If I pick the rock up and hit myself in the face with it, they will not occupy the same coordinates upon collision, instead one or the other will be forced out of the way. If a clown exists, then it exists (Yes, tautologies can be conditionals). In fact, it appears as though everything around us is governed by these chains of cause and effect. The universe seems to be a massive conglomeration of mechanical parts in motion.
Now, what does all of that mean? Well, let's revisit the definition of determinism; Given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. From what we just talked about, that means that given some past state (P) and the laws of nature (L) we must arrive at some particular future (F). With the laws of nature being conditional (If, then) statements we cannot possibly get anything other than F if we start by putting P into the equation. It's like adding numbers, no matter how many times you punch 5+7 into a calculator you will always arrive at 12. It cannot possibly be any other way.
Consider something. Human actions are events. More than that, it appears as though your "mind" is a highly complex chemical reaction in your brain... intricate and mysterious enough that we don't fully understand it but still a very physical thing. Chemicals interact in a series of events. Physical events are governed by physical laws and if determinism holds true then given brain state A and the laws of nature we will always arrive at brain state B. The actions your physical body takes are then governed by these changes in the state of your brain, so given brain state B and the laws of nature we will always arrive at course of action C. These are conditionals, equations. It is impossible to input some set of data and arrive at more than one answer, no matter how many times it is tested.
Now, you don't exist in a vacuum. You are, hopefully, influenced by a great many factors, all of those variables feeding into this equation. But, it is still just an equation at the end of the day and all of these conditionals lead to the same physically possible future... of which there can only be one. So it is hypothetically possible that you could go to the store today and it is hypothetically possible that you could not go to the store today but only one of them is physically possible. Whatever happens doesn't just become the course of history, it is the only possible course history could have taken (Are we seeing the pattern here?).
If there is only one outcome, then there aren't any alternatives by definition. If there aren't any alternatives then free will cannot possibly enter the equation. And that, in a nutshell, is my argument for why free will does not exist (And by "my argument," I mean the argument that I've come across and adopted).
Any questions? Rebuttals? I'll probably be doing a "part two" anyways just because it's such a juicy topic and I ended up cutting a lot of stuff I'd like to talk about (Yes, as wordy as this post is, it's abbreviated), so I might as well answer any direct responses in the process should they arise before then.
First, what is free will? Literally, it is having a will that is a free. In this case the "will" is volition, the conscious desire, a mental state capable of striving towards some action. "Free" means unconstrained. So, slamming it together, we get an unconstrained volition. Great. Essentially what that means is that the volition has some form of unconstrained freedom to decide upon a particular course of action. This is all probably something that you're very familiar and seems pointless, but the technical terminology is important because...
For the volition to choose between various courses of action there have to actually be various courses of action in the first place. Again, this seems obvious, but it's very important. If there is only one course of action with no other alternatives, then it cannot be said that free will enters into the equation because there aren't any choices to be made. To put it another way, if A can lead to B, C or D, then we could discuss free will (Because there are choices), but if A can only lead to B then we cannot (Because there aren't). Free will in undertaking any course of action hinges upon alternatives being present.
Now, what's all this determinism nonsense about? Determinism is the philosophical stance that posits that given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. Great. What does that mean? First, let's talk about the physically possible and the hypothetically possible. The physically possible is something that can actually occur in reality... a pretty simple concept. It was physically possible for me to start a blog and we know this because it already happened. The hypothetically possible is something that we can conceive of occurring, whether or not it actually does (Or can). It is hypothetically possible that I could start a second blog for the hell of it. It is also hypothetically possible that ostriches are all highly intelligent terrorists from mars that are waiting for the perfect time to eradicate the human race by panicking us with loud noises and flashing lights. The probability of these two hypothetical worlds becoming physical isn't important, nor is the level of absurdity involved, they're both equally hypothetical.
With me so far? Good.
Alright, do you know what the past is? That's what has already happened chronologically. Yeah, I thought you knew. Really, I did. What about the laws of nature, what are those? You probably already know that too, things like gravity, solid objects not being able to occupy the same coordinates in space and clowns existing. The funny thing about the laws of nature is that they are essentially various forms of cause and effect. If I drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity. If I pick the rock up and hit myself in the face with it, they will not occupy the same coordinates upon collision, instead one or the other will be forced out of the way. If a clown exists, then it exists (Yes, tautologies can be conditionals). In fact, it appears as though everything around us is governed by these chains of cause and effect. The universe seems to be a massive conglomeration of mechanical parts in motion.
Now, what does all of that mean? Well, let's revisit the definition of determinism; Given the past and the laws of nature there is only one physically possible future. From what we just talked about, that means that given some past state (P) and the laws of nature (L) we must arrive at some particular future (F). With the laws of nature being conditional (If, then) statements we cannot possibly get anything other than F if we start by putting P into the equation. It's like adding numbers, no matter how many times you punch 5+7 into a calculator you will always arrive at 12. It cannot possibly be any other way.
Consider something. Human actions are events. More than that, it appears as though your "mind" is a highly complex chemical reaction in your brain... intricate and mysterious enough that we don't fully understand it but still a very physical thing. Chemicals interact in a series of events. Physical events are governed by physical laws and if determinism holds true then given brain state A and the laws of nature we will always arrive at brain state B. The actions your physical body takes are then governed by these changes in the state of your brain, so given brain state B and the laws of nature we will always arrive at course of action C. These are conditionals, equations. It is impossible to input some set of data and arrive at more than one answer, no matter how many times it is tested.
Now, you don't exist in a vacuum. You are, hopefully, influenced by a great many factors, all of those variables feeding into this equation. But, it is still just an equation at the end of the day and all of these conditionals lead to the same physically possible future... of which there can only be one. So it is hypothetically possible that you could go to the store today and it is hypothetically possible that you could not go to the store today but only one of them is physically possible. Whatever happens doesn't just become the course of history, it is the only possible course history could have taken (Are we seeing the pattern here?).
If there is only one outcome, then there aren't any alternatives by definition. If there aren't any alternatives then free will cannot possibly enter the equation. And that, in a nutshell, is my argument for why free will does not exist (And by "my argument," I mean the argument that I've come across and adopted).
Any questions? Rebuttals? I'll probably be doing a "part two" anyways just because it's such a juicy topic and I ended up cutting a lot of stuff I'd like to talk about (Yes, as wordy as this post is, it's abbreviated), so I might as well answer any direct responses in the process should they arise before then.
So, what is this and why should I care?
A blog, and I guess you shouldn't... unless you happen to like boardgames, music or philosophy (And preferably all three). Since those three things take up 99% of my time these days, I thought I might as well go for broke and tack on another 0.5%. 1/200th of my life is enough time to spend on eating and sleeping, right? Anyways... well, that's the gist of it. At the moment I'm going to play things by ear and just post irregular updates about whatever strikes my fancy, but I'll try to keep the balance more or less equal and might consider implementing some sort of rough schedule later down the line. Also, feel free to try to prod me in the direction you'd prefer this to go, I might actually listen.
And that's that. Let's get the show on the road... or whatever.
And that's that. Let's get the show on the road... or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)