Talk:Shadows of the Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shadows of the Sun article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Reference #1 may change - here is the text from the accessdate

Many of you have been waiting for sound, and we are sorry for the silence. We needed to be alone, without the hustle and bustle of the living. We are uncomfortable with the world, the industry and our place. We have been working, sluggishly, well aware we could end up with nothing. Nonetheless we believe we have succeeded in giving our fears some kind of form. SHADOWS OF THE SUN, our 7th full-length album, is finished and will be released October 1st. We feel it is our most personal record to date. Low-key, dark, and tragic. As we are.

ULVER, Oslo, July 13 2007.

cun 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


The link in the bottom box to the record Metamorphosis does not lead to the Ulver EP, and I don't know how to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.227.132 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for notifying! I have fixed the link now :)
Sincerely, cun 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre discussion

Hello Frédérick. Could you please take a look on Ulver's new album page Shadows of the Sun. One user thinks the album falls into the category of Electronic art music.

This reminded me about the discussion on erudite/art music on avant-garde metal talk page. Can you tell me what do you think about it?

It seems like a biased personal point of view, just to make the band seem more pompous. And it's a matter of inconsistency. If you declare one band as art music (although most music nowadays falls into popular music, now matter how popular it is), then other bands should also fall into that category. Especially the more "artsy" bands.

Nice work on the Avant-garde metal page. I am quite astonished by your musical theory knowledge. Death2 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is not electronic art music, what is it then? It heavily incorporates elements from classical :and experimental music with the help of electronic instruments and devices. What genre is that? You also give me views I don't have: "Biased personal point of view, just to make the band seem more pompous." Please don't do that. If it's not minimalism, how come the album sound very much alike one audio sample on the minimalist music article, and like Arvo Pärt, a well-renowned minimalist composer? Have you guys even heard the new album by Ulver? -cun 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your nice words.

I like their latest release but Ulver is by no mean electronic art music. The guy who wrote that is completely mistaken. Ulver is nowhere near to that kind of music.

Electronic art music refer to stuffs like electroacoustic, that is to say composers like Stockhausen, Xenakis, Pierre Henri or more recently Horaccio Vaggione. Electronic art music is actually one of the branches of modern music which descends from historical Classical music even though it rejected most of its heritage. Electronic art music implies notably very high knowledge in physics, accoustics and sound deconstruction. Which are not things Ulver is concerned about.

Anyway there's often a confusion concerning the meaning of popular music and art music. Most particularly about fans of experimental rock and metal who use the word "art music" in a different sense as what it is normally meant to refers. As Art music actually refers to Serious music or erudite music which implies advanced theorical considerations and deconstruction and implies a written tradition as opposed to oral or recorded transmission. But experimental fans use it only as a term of " artistic trueness" by opposition to commercial music. Hence a big confusion in the comprehension of the term.

As for the term popular music, as said in the heavy metal music's discussion page, there's a big confusion about the meaning of the word of "popular" concerning the term "popular music". Here It doesn't mean that it is “famous” or “trendy” as many understand it. Basically the term “popular” was coined by a classical aristocratic elitist view .“Popular” in that meaning just implies that music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”. Even though that social cleavage doesn't make sense anymore. The music categories the words refer to are still valid. In this meaning music may be popular music without being commercial or famous or whatever.

Greetings :)Frédérick Duhautpas 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Frédérick Duhautpas 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Electronic art music implies notably very high knowledge in physics, accoustics and sound deconstruction. Which are not things Ulver is concerned about.
How do you know this? As far as I can tell, the music of Ulver on this album is highly concerned with accoustics and sound deconstruction. How about you coming up with another genre we could use on the album? :)
I tried to look for something more fitting, but electronic art music was the closest I could find (minmalist music is treated on your own talk page). -cun 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because tha album is slow and does not have many notes, it isn't minimalism. See Minimalist music.
Art music, and that is also reflected in electronic art music (mostly same ideas, different means of producing sounds). Read that article and then claim Ulver falls in that category.
Isn't experimental, ambient and electronic music enough to describe this album?
Even though there is nothing much experimental about this... piano, synthesizers, theremin, no unusual song structures or abrupt changes. Kafhimpa 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you say about experimental music, but placed in Ulver's context this music is kind of experimental. However, feel free to remove the genre specification, as I really must agree with you in the end. I placed it as "experimental" before the album was available, due to Ulver's constantly evolving nature. However, I don't agree about removing minimalism yet. It fits the descriptions in the article (especially the quote by the self-defined minimalist artist in the beginning of the article). I wonder, is there a genre for electronic music which plays classical? I went into classical music and found only "electronic art music", but it can't be. -cun 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre discussion part 2

I was writing an extensive technical reply concerning electronic art music but Kafhimpa said everything in a few words. Thanks to him.
Cun what puzzles me the most in your approach is your capacity to classify an album with genres you actually don’t seem to be very much familiar with. I fail to see how you can consider that electronic art music is the closest thing you could find when it simply has nothing to do with it.
How about just calling it just "ambient" and "electronic". Isn’t that sufficient?
Beside I am quite surprised that you can argue things like this :
“How come the album sounds exactly the same as one of the audio samples on the article about minimalism? The description of minimalism fits as well.”
How can you claim that an album is minimalist basing your conviction only on a simple audio sample in wikipidia and a quote from an article? No offence but this is a lack of seriousness. You really should get familiar to these genres before arguing such claims.
Anyway while I don’t deny there may be some inflections in Ulver’s music that are reminiscent of Minimalism, that’s far from being sufficient to claim they play minimalism. I absolutely don’t consider it as minimalist music. Sure I agree there are similar moods between both music and occasionally some similar aesthetic. But that’s not enough to call it minimalist.
I also concur that Ulver may have been influenced by classical music but because a band draws inspiration from classical or minimalism doesn’t mean it automatically plays some classical and minimalism. No offence but that’s really naive to think so. Just like those fans of symphonic metal who think their idols play some “new classical music”.
Playing classical or minimalism implies capturing their essence and their structural theory. And I can tell you Ulver is nowhere near to the structural complexity of classical composition.
On the other hand their music is closer to the structural simplicity of minimalism, but they rarely make use of the essential compositional techniques of real minimalist composers.
Here are a few differences between Minimalism and Ulver
  1. Most of the minimalist music patterns are based on small repetitive rhythmic cells or motives. Now Ulver doesn’t make much use of such repetitive motives. Though we can occasionally hear some furtive cases for example in the late part of the song: All the Love, or in Let the Children go. But that’s a way too short occurence to call this a minimalist technique.
  2. In minimalism these motives are frequently treated in a slow gradual change overtime through the entire piece. Now there’s no such example of motivic evolution in Ulver’s music.
  3. In minimalist music these motives are often treated with the classical cannonic imitation technique. Now there is no such use of technical use of canonic imitation in Ulver’s music
  4. Most of the minimalist music is characterized by static harmony (one chord or pedal point, or a minimal set of chords). Now in contrast Ulver just uses typical chord progression of popular music. Which is not what I could call a static harmony even though the general slow tempo gives a static feel. Though we can occasionally hear some short case of static harmony in Ulver’s music such as the opening part of the song Shadow of the Sun, Ulver’s mostly uses standard regular contrasted chords progressions.
  5. Minimalist is supposed to favour consonance. Now frequently Ulver implies occasional dissonant parts in their songs just like in the repetitive motives of the late part of All the love or in the late part of Shadow of the Sun.
  6. The vocals of Ulver are typically those of popular music but they are in no way typical of minimalism.
  7. Minimalism frequently implies Influence of non-Western music or cultures. I fail to hear any kind of such influence in Ulver’s album.
  8. Minimalism frequently implies the use of pure tuning and just intonation. I fail to hear any use of alternate tuning in Ulver’s music. They just use standard temperament.
  9. Real Minimalism music (just like any classical music form) is created by ONE-composer not by a band. The Band concept is rather a musical use of popular culture. Sure ultimately you could tell me nothing prevents a band from playing such music anyway. You’d be right to claim so. But that’s it generally minimalism is bound to a one composer approach played by an instrumental ensemble.
  10. Minimalist composers have basically a classical and contemporary background, even though there are many overlaps with popular music. In contrast Ulver has a metal/rock background even though they may be inspired by classical music
As for your concept of “electronic classical music”, by essence true classical music wouldn’t make use of electronic sounds because Classical music is generally concerned with instruments with rich acoustic spectra that only traditional acoustic instruments can provide. The spectra of electronic sounds would be too poor for the exigencies of standard classical composers.
Anyway I insist because Ulver draws inspiration from classical doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the essence of Real classical. Frédérick Duhautpas 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for very informative comments regarding genre problems, classifications et cetera. I must humbly agree with what you say, although I do not like you attacking the person sometimes. Calling another debatant "naive" is not very polite, you should instead focus on the case. But anyhow, you mostly do with great knowledge, it seems, and I feel to remove the genres "experimental" and "minimalism". I learn something new every day and this day is no exception. Thank you once more! Sincerely, cun 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, my friend. And I have to praise your reasonability. Because not all debattants have the intelligence and the courage to put in question their own views. On a side note I have to apologize humbly if any of my words hurt you. You’re right: implying that a debattant is naïve was not very polite from me. I’m sorry but believe I didn’t mean to be an offence. So please accept my apologies.Hope you'll accept them.
Best regards to you.Frédérick Duhautpas 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I gladly accept them. I am very glad users like you exist at all! Sincerely, cun 08:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)