Talk:Autechre

pronounced?

Can someone please add a pronunciation guide to the name of this artist? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.78.70 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

misc

I have to say I don't agree with any of the three 'suspicions' listed. The third one certainly would be strongly disputed by ae themselves.Ledge 14:42, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think those "suspicions" are meant to be accusation as such (thie third one, for instance, is trying to say that Autechre's music sounds like it was written by computers, not that it actually was), but I certainly think these are rather personal responses to Autechre's music and probably not appropriate for the article. I'm not sure about this assertion that their music is "thick and dense" either - it's always seemed a model of clarity to me. If we could find a review by a recognised critic who said these sorts of things about Autechre, then we could quote him and that would be fine, but otherwise that commentary should probably be taken out (I'll leave it in just for now, because I'm in a rush, but if somebody else takes it out, that'll be fine as far as I'm concerned). --Camembert

'K, I've taken out the suspicions, and added a piece about reactions to their music which I hope is a bit more NPOV. I'm not really sure who could count as a recognised critic... also added a piece about the generative storm-in-a-teacup, unfortunately couldn't find a decent single quote in the article to sum it up. --Ledge

I suppose by "recognised critic" I just meant somebody who has had stuff published in a reasonably well known magazine (rather than somebody writing in their blog or whatever). What you've added looks pretty good to me. --Camembert

We're not sure about this, but.. AUral TECHnology REdefined, article in Sound on Sound, around 1993? Someone can verify or acknowledge this? Guaka 19:34, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've heard this rumour before (as AUdio TECHnology REsearch), but never seen any proof. No evidence of a 1993 interview on the SoS website, no mention in the 1997 interview.Ledge

Little mistake. It was Future Music. Still need to locate the magazine in a huge pile of mags and stuff.

Autechre (from anywhere, meaning anything you want, pronounced any way you want)

I met them while they were behind the counter at ambient soho back in about '94/'95?, anyway I had to ask about the name and rob said that it was originally a similar name but they had to fit it into the characters available in an atari filename so on the spur of the moment decided on autechre. Of course he could have been winding me up but they were very honest about some other stuff like what they thought of fsol and being very embarassed when I told them I had a copy of cavity job - their first 12 which has a great chord sequence by the way. davidcbarnett

What happened to the ep7 album?

Autechre consider it an EP, so it is under the EP section of the discography. Junjk 07:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It was originally released as two EPs: "EP 7.1" and "EP 7.2". Admittedly a confusing one, since the combined EP7 does not fit the criteria for an EP release. Magic Window 14:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Is Amber's cover really Turkey's Cappadocia rock formations? I thought they were sand dunes, commonly located on the United Kingdom's coastline (and elsewhere in the world), and bears some similarities in to those located near to Ae's their home town of Rochdale. The dunes in the UK are breaking down at the edge of the beach due to coastal erosion, forming patterns of sand 'piles'. 94.14.180.158 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout and the Music section

it seems like a lot of the information that should be grouped together is unnecessarily spread across several of the sections here.

the general information at the top should probably say where they are from; and while this happens in the history section now, i think the general information should also introduce the names of the members.

right now, music software and algorithmic pattern generation get mentioned in the music section, but i think they should probably be moved to the methods section. their music definitely has an intimidating unconventionality to it (which i myself actually found immediately appealing, contrary to the article's claim), but the fact that they use music software and algorithms to generate it is secondary to the style itself, which i think the music section is trying to describe.

that section is a bit weak right now in my opinion, if it's really attempting to be a description of style, and i think there is a lot of detail that could be added. an attempt could be made to chronicle their stylistic changes over their carreer. the most notable change is probably between the clean sterility of Tri Repetae and Chiastic Slide's crunchier edge, though there have been significant changes with almost every album since Incunabula.

also i think that draft 7.30 no longer holds the throne for most percussion-oriented album, now that untilted is out, but im not sure it's necessary to point out which album is most drum oriented in the section's current form, which is a general overview of their style. all of their albums have a lot of percussion-heavy tracks, and this sounds like draft 7.30 is the pinnacle of their style. Twelvethirteen 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

note: i made some of the changes i talked about in that diatribe (excuse the diatribe). i also changed the word "nickname" to "moniker" since a nickname is given by someone else, while a moniker is given to yourself. ae is a moniker because it appears on their official releases. i changed "max/msp/jitter" to "max/msp." jitter is an expansion for max/msp that allows the inclusion and processing of video signals. though they may own jitter, i find it doubtful that they use it in their music.

it would also be nice to at some point include some booth/brown quotes from interviews or references to actual critical reviews, but i'll leave that to someone who is more familiar with those types of things. (for now) Twelvethirteen 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Algorithmic Generation

ive been thinking a lot about how to do justice to autechre's use of algorithmic sound and pattern generation. in particular ive been looking at this interview with sean. about 2/3 of the way through they start discussing algorithms and generative music in some depth. this could be a good source, but im not exactly sure how we could use some of these quotes. Twelvethirteen 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it says "but Sean Booth has disputed these claims" and refers to the website you quote, but this is wrong IMHO, I don't think he disputes that, he rather mocks (sp?) the interviewers take on algorithmic music. I think that part should be deleted. (Link to interview should stay though) 85.178.53.25 13:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment Alex 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Autechre name origin

Autechre did an interview in 1994 with a Los Angeles based culture/future media magazine "Resource" where they claimed the name "Autechre" came from a random character generator that either Booth or Brown had coded. The program simply spit out an eight-character alphabetic form when triggered. "Autechre" came up eventually and they simply liked the look and potential sound of it.

I will have to dig through some stacks to find that issue for a source. I might have the name wrong.

I am most totally certain that any notion the name means "Audio Architecture" or "Audio Technology Redefined" or any variation is false; its proliferation seems to stem from a series of erroneous discussions on the IDM mailing list at hyperreal.org during the mid to late 1990's.

If so, I doubt it was purely random. A pronounceable word with 50% vowels would be rare. 86.128.49.27 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

living arrangements

in the interview:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~reynolda/music_ae_092801.html

sean talks about the working relationship with rob, and runs through his day so far, at one point saying:

"Yeah, and then he got up about five minutes after I did (laughs) and just like didn't have any coffee."

do they live together? do they share a bed? are they lovers?

*LOL* no man.. IIRC the have somewhat comparable studios, Rob lives in london and Sean is married to Mira Calix and lives somewhere in the country side, Suffolk.

see http://www.discogs.com/artist/Mira+Calix

nice guys btw --Wires 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Please expand this article."

Is this tag still needed? It's starting to remind me of those perpetual "This page is under construction" GIFs. There's room to grow, but the article seems adequate. – edgarde 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yes. Expansion tags often end up in places where people wouldn't like to see them, but they're needed here. In addition to the sectstub tags under Music and Methods (those two sections are hardly adequate), the article could do with more on public perception of Autechre's music and responses from peers and critics. I figure a lot of people who view this page regularly have been waiting a long time for that additional material. — Shoejar 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Any article that isn't already at a 'featured' level could use expansion. It's implicit in the site. I'm going to remove the top tag, as Edgarde suggested. --Quiddity 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Article protection

Considering the constant vandalising of this article, how about semi-protection? I requested it once about two months ago and it was knocked back. What do people think? Shoejar^talk/edits

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. It's only to be used as a last resort, and this page has only been vandalised a few times in the last week. Protection would only be an option if there were dozens of problems per day. (eg It's a Wonderful Life - History - this was protected today.) We can easily watch&fix the tiny amount that occurs here. :) --Quiddity 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was proper justification at the time semi-protection was rejected, but the regularity of it has gotten on my nerves since then. I dunno. Shoejar

Adding reviews

There is an editor who has recently decided, unfortunately, to take ownership of this article for his own agenda (whatever that might be) and reverting any edits made to it. To whichever anonymous editor who added reviews of Untilted, Peel Sessions 2 and the ae3o collaboration with The Hafler Trio may instead want to consider adding these to their album pages directly (or create a new album page for the collaboration). AlexReynolds 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You need to learn more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as WP:CITE) before making such attacks on other editors (also read WP:NPA).
2. With regard to the gallery: Wikipedia has become extremely strict with regard to the misuse of fair-use images. In some respects I believe that this has gone too far; nevertheless, as I explained on your Talk page, insisting on such misues is not allowed, and if you continue you might well be blocked from editing as a result. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:CITE which explains your editing actions to remove the gallery. You need to properly cite relevant policy guidelines indicating why you make the changes you are making, before making drastic edits that do not reflect how nearly all WP artist pages are edited. This would otherwise be considered common courtesy.

Your behavior in this respect has been noted on your Talk page more than once by various parties. Consider this observation a personal attack if you like, but you might want to carefully rethink how you are using your administrative privileges to bully other editors. AlexReynolds 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You need to learn to read what other editors write, not what you think that they're going to write. In this case, the reference to WP:CITE was in response to your ill-informed and ill-mannered comments about my reverting of unexplained and unsourced edits by other editors.
2. "[N]early all WP artist pages" don't have galleries — very few do, in fact, and those are gradually being removed. Your behaviour in aggressively reverting explained changes made in accordance with policy, and your subsequent incivility here, leaves you in no position to throw stones.
3. I used no admin privileges. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

music samples

Slip is a great song, but if I was going to pick one song to represent Autechre, I think it would be one of my last choices. It is immensely dissimilar from the majority of their work. If anyone else agrees and feels up to it, I think it should either be replaced or at least add 1 or 2 other songs in addition that would help to more accurately reflect Autechre's whole sound.WildlifeAnalysis 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It would be valuable to have something from Confield to represent their later work, and Tri Repetae since it's probably their best-known release. --Ultra Megatron 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Eidetic Casine and C/Pach?? All three clips would essentially represent the sound of each album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnetin (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That is a much better way to represent their sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.225.216 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this page into a Featured Article!!!

I think we definitely have the potential to, it would expose quite a lot of people to Autechre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.153.134 (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Pixel Eater (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sto Lend EP (?)

I just discovered a "Sto Lend" EP by Autechre on iTunes (Canada store). Here is the info:

• Autechre. Sto Lend (EP).
• Released: December 01, 1996
• (p) 1996 Catapult

• 1. Klabin
• 2. Sil-Taper
• 3. Mend/Cin
• 4. Cynic
• 5. It's Not (The Black Dog Mix)

- - -

What the hell is this? I never heard of this Autechre EP before. Any additional info? --FreedonNadd (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

according to some randomer on watmm;

In 2008 an Autechre EP was released titled Sto Lend. It was released as a lost collection of tracks by the duo circa

1996-'97. The truth is, although it was made during that time period, it wasn't Autechre but by a group called Autopilot. Originally this EP was produced after a self titled limited edition CD by the duo of Se Jun Ho & Derek Marin and never released. What does tie this EP to Autechre themselves (other that it sorta does sound like them) is that some of the sounds where recycled from programed beats that were left on Roland R8 drum machine after a Warp event. Sean Booth & Rob Brown actually borrowed equipment from Derek Marin for the live show Autechre performed at a Blech party in NYC & in the process left beats on the machine. The beats were later used to create some of this recording. How the Sto Lend EP was released as an Autechre project is not

known but now it is finally available under it's true identity. To sum up: Yes it's not Autechre, Yes it was produced in 96/97, yes it does have some beats programmed by Autechre themselves & yes the Sto Lend EP was previously released by someone unknown under false pretenses.

completely unverifiable, but nonetheless interesting if true. --Kaini (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Music-making methods and inclusion of personal non-verifiable information

I had a chance to talk to Booth before their performance this February in Graz, Austria. One of the topics that (as I think) could be included here is their music-making methods. Booth says that they are not using MAX/MSP or similar sequencing software any longer, but moved to using hardware (which includes both digital and analog devices). However, this information could not be verified, as that was purely personal chat (not an interview). However, the sound on Quaristice indirectly confirms this. Could I include information like this in the article? I am neuron (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Yes, anything that improves the encyclopedia is welcome. The complex answer is: Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability (particularly the nutshell). Hope that helps. -- Quiddity 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I have an interview from Future Music magazine in March 2008 that says they still use max/msp on quaristice. - Drthatguy (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

• Many describe Autechre's music as cold and austere, whereas others perceive a warmth and sentimentality that touches even the most cerebral pieces.{{Fact|date=February 2008}}
• Autechre have emphasized that their music-making involves using new techniques on old equipment and old techniques on new equipment, and that their sound comes from combinations of tools and techniques, and "creative routing", more than any single magical machine.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
• This has been the case since their early days, when, for example, they used a Boss delay that had a pitch/trigger input, allowing it to be used as a realtime sampler.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7

This reference doesn't justify the setence in the article. Quoting from the interview: "He wanted text, so, yeah, we wrote some nonsense software. It's mostly Pascal, you know, kind of dated (laughs)."

So the sentence: "Autechre have experimented in depth with..." makes no sense with regards to SuperCollider.

"Cheesy" early albums

A recent edit removed the sentence about Brown stating that the first couple of albums sounded, in retrospect, "cheesy". I've restored this. I don't necessarily agree with it myself, but it's relevant and it's referenced and it's surely of some interest to know what an artist thinks of their own work. I suppose it might eventually go in a section dedicated to critical responses to Autechre (I've half a mind to write one myself), but for the moment I think it's better where it is than not in the article at all. --Camembert (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

article development

we need to keep a handle on WP:OR here. whilst Amber (colour) is undoubtedly the middle colour light on traffic signals, and Amber (album) is undoubtedly autechre's second album, to suggest any connection without a proper cite is pure WP:SYN --Kaini (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

EPs

Autechre's EPs are of equivalent importance as their albums and tidy enough to be easily listed, should they be listed along with the Studio albums in the quick discography? Neroli (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autechre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209092827/http://www.disquiet.com/autechre.html to http://www.disquiet.com/autechre.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201091637/http://www.autechre.ws/quaristice/mail/ to http://www.autechre.ws/quaristice/mail/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kultureflash.net/archive/119/priview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autechre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119053615/http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/29 to http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/29/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620122259/http://www.kultureflash.net/ to http://kultureflash.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050615004324/http://www.cyclicdefrost.com/article.php?article=879 to http://www.cyclicdefrost.com/article.php?article=879
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418085020/http://www.failme.net/2010/04/sean-booth-speaks.html to http://www.failme.net/2010/04/sean-booth-speaks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Verification maintenance message

What's the consensus on removing the "additional citations" maintenance message? I think the article is in much better shape than it was in March 2019 and is adequately cited, but I want to hear what others think. Beachweak (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)