Adrian Belew’s Flux ‘An Evolution In The Way We Experience Music’

Multi-instrumentalist Adrian Belew is running a Kickstarter project to help develop Flux, a new application and format for music that promises to never play a song the same way twice.

According to Belew, it’s a format for music that reflects changes in the way we live our lives and even think:

Technology has changed our lives so dramatically.

Most of us walk around with a small device in our pockets which can do things that only twenty years ago would have seemed miraculous. We are connected to the world, and as a result must deal with a daily flood of information.

So, how has this changed us?

Our brains are now trained to process information in quick, random bursts–from Facebook and Twitter feeds, text messages, Youtube clips, etc. Our ability to multitask is greater, but our attention spans are shorter.

But modern music does not reflect these changes. Besides a shift in how we get music (streaming and downloading), most music has largely remained unaltered, still made in the same format used for over 60 years–the 3 to 5 minute song. Nothing wrong with that, but how about an alternative?

Flux isn’t designed to play back 3-5 minutes songs, like traditional music players. Instead, it presents an ever-changing variety of music, songs, sounds, and visual art, that comes at you in quick, surprising pieces. According to Belew, this introduces you to a lot of different music quickly, and each listen is unique.

While songs do repeat over time, the song forms themselves are short and varied. Songs even appear in multiple versions, with different lyrics and instrumentation. Sometimes a longer song will play in its entirety, but most often you’ll only hear a portion of it, which may be interrupted by something else: a startling sound effect or a common everyday noise. There are hundreds of these songs, pieces of music, and sonic “snippets”, along with engaging visuals randomly changing with the music.

Underlying the interface is a content management system, for music, sounds and visuals, that allows probabilities to be assigned to the content, determining how and when they appear. This ensures that Flux never plays the same way twice. If you like, though, you can press a ‘favorite’ button, and which will let you play something again, anytime you like.

Flux also includes pictures, lyrics, studio notes, backstories about the songs, and interactive ways to share your Flux experience with your friends via social media.

Flux is being developed as a Kickstarter project. See the project site for details.

39 thoughts on “Adrian Belew’s Flux ‘An Evolution In The Way We Experience Music’

  1. Aside from being all hi-tech and “the future of music”, why would you want to interrupt a song with a random sound effect instead of appreciating the whole things’ musicality and production that people put a lot of hard work into? If getting with the times means making music for short attention spans then I’m a dinosaur.

  2. The horror that is the commercial radio formatting machinery being touted as an innovation one should actually WANT is beyond me. I’m apparently entering my fuddy duddy years…

    1. I think too many people are looking at this as some kind of drive to change music entirely. I don’t think it is based on what the actual artist’s description reads:

      “Besides a shift in how we get music (streaming and downloading), most music has largely remained unaltered, still made in the same format used for over 60 years–the 3 to 5 minute song. Nothing wrong with that, but how about an alternative?

      Belew has always been on the cutting edge of experimental musical concepts. He has a prolific career and has written/performed more music than everybody whose commented on this article put together. What I truly find hilarious about all these comments it that many electronic musicians tout themselves as modern experimental “scientists” and yet when a relatively-new concept (a fresher idea than 99.9 things labeled as “experimental” on soundcloud) comes along, they bash it as if it were trying to force a change upon them.

      It’s a concept. An idea. It isn’t meant to replace any style/genre/medium/tradition/etc… It’s just a freaking experiment. Stop shitting yourselves and either listen to it and consider WHAT THE CONCEPT IS TRYING TO TELL YOU… or don’t. You DO have a choice in the matter, you know? I’m sure Adrian is just going to keep making music and move on from this (if he hasn’t already). That’s what TRUE VISIONARIES do. They move on…

  3. Is this different to going on an mp3 download site, loading loads of mp3s into their player, pressing play and listening to all the 1min 30sec preview clips?

    1. Yes, because apparently with this you getting the added “feature” of having that 1 min clip interrupted with random noise. What you propose would be better.

    1. He didn’t literally say that, nor is there need for double quotes. I don’t even think that statement was figuratively conveyed.

      This looks more like a sonic and visual art piece.

  4. I have no problem with “Flux” as a concept album. Todd Rundgren has done similar interactive mix-it-yourself albums before. Flux seems to revolve around shorter sections and catering to the world’s ever- shortening attention spans. It’s hard to blame Belew for tapping into the Kickstarter crowd-financing thing, either.

    Belew has a vision of his music getting all cut up and thrown in tiny bits into his audiences ears. And if an audience wants their music all throw into a blender and chopped up so that they don’t need to ever chew on anything ever again, well, I just think that’ll be kinda sad.

  5. Seems like another aging priveledged boomer completely misinterpreting things again and putting out tech we’ve had for a long time as if it were now new and extra special.

      1. Talk about misinterpreting a message… it’s not because he’s “old(er)”, that was a symptom The message itself is what I shot right between it’s crossed eyes.

  6. Guys? Are you serious? This project is about non-linear reproduction of an integral album, connected stylistically and conceptually. Ever heard of hypertext literature? This is hyper(text?) music, which is not about cutting music in short pieces, but about continuous rearranging of a piece, carefully estimated and created specially for this purpose. Similiar projects exist to show different sides of a precomposed song to fans, for example. Ever felt that you wanna share not a single final cut of a song, but a variety of different parts played on different instruments, or in different structure? This is like all of those alternative cuts and re-arrangments of the original song, like the beatles did, or james lavelle, or depeche mode, but, well, in flux — constantly changing.
    If you wanna hear the same song with different solo, but for this song not to be a jazz improvisation, or a live play at all, but a studio recording?
    D’uh, some hater flashmob here, or a trollfest, wtf?

    1. while I’m not really all that interested in the concept myself, I too am surprised at people’s complaints of non-repetition. I think most of the crowd here has never heard of Brian Eno, or a fan of anything remotely “jazz”. Ironically for them calling this the “ADD” generation, while listening to Deadmau 5, Skrillex, and the 97% of the rest of boring electronic music. If that makes me “ADD” than I am fine with that

    2. I’m far more interested in hearing a piece of music that is arranged in a considered way, to be something worth hearing more than once! The world does not need yet another generator of infinite varieties of the same crap. Because let’s face it, the more malleable a song is, the less formed it is at its root. Eventually every song pushed far enough would be “a new song”. So stop with the self indulgent idea that tech somehow makes possible what the creative process already has, and just start writing songs people actually want to hear instead of all the infinite varieties in between.

      1. please read my reply to Thomas a couple of posts down, “the more malleable the song is, the less formed it is at its root” is not necessarily true, although I agree that it will more likely be the case in this scenario where the idea is first being attempted.

  7. @Synclickal maybe the problem is actually this: its an interesting concept, but when I watch that kickstarter promo video I dont hear anything I would want to listen to, conceptually or ACTUALLY. Using your example, how many hypertext books have you actually read? Me = none. I read books because I like the authors writing AND their construction and evolution of story. I am not inetrested in an app thats randomnly or using probability to insert unrelated text.
    If i am listening to music I like I dont want it interrupted with ‘snippets’ – that would be like listening to the radio and someone randomnly changing the station.
    Dont get me wrong, I am deeply interested in aleatoric music but Flux doesn’t come across as that.
    It appears more like a bad mix tape made by a pseudo DJ with ADHD

    1. It obviously would not be like the radio, There are all sorts of rule sets of varying depths one could construct in the context of a single generative song that transcends the idea of pure randomness. It could be as much of an art form as the recordings themselves depending on the person programming it, so its still up in the air as to how this will turn out

  8. They say the album format is dead…why not the single too….this sounds interesting…my only concern is that the split positions should be instigated by the artist ….not the user.

  9. I see this as doing approaching audio/visual media in much the same way as William S. Burroughs’ writing approached literature. The difference being that this will not cast the content just once into it’s final form as before publishing a book.

  10. If you run this in tandem with a Hatsune Miku vocaloid generator and install it in an autonomous road vehicle I will buy it so I can chase it down and destroy it with a shotgun.

  11. This will be ideal for shopping mall music & telephone ‘hold’ music.
    Particularly if they mess with a songs’ arrangement so that you lose track of time!

  12. Raises the meta-question, “Should artists cater to their audiences?” (read: pander)

    If Artists are inspired to cut things in this way, or even work in a medium with elements of surprise, then they are responding to something in their guts. That’s a good thing.

    The “aging, privileged, boomer” (who is often a “digital immigrant”) is forced to second guess the zeitgeist of the music. It is an understandable attempt to stay relevant. But doesn’t it seem like Belew is practically claiming to “re-invent” it?

    I’m not dissing Belew as a composer. I suspect this will be well-done and very cool to hear. I just think as a marketing ploy, he’d be better off saying he invented a time machine, or was abducted by aliens or something.

  13. I can respect this, I don’t think I’ll be that interested in it, though maybe I will, but what bugs me is that Adrian says this is something “that’s never been done before”. A few people in the comments have already mentioned some examples but beyond that I remember another Kickstarter project that had a similar concept, but it never took off. I’m guessing the fact that the other project didn’t have a super flashy produced video with a notable musician endorsing didn’t help.

  14. Interesting idea. But I think what most hate is the source material their mixing up and how they are randomly mixed up. Maybe good for others who share his beliefs. And maybe that’s not the majority, based on the comments. Personally, I listen to music to get into a particular mood. I would hate someone randomizing my moods :P. Remove the “random” part and add in creativity (perhaps through some AI) and you might get pleasing results. This is a good man-made example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoHxoz_0ykI

    “The same old stuff” is the stuff that worked through the ages. 😛 I also believe that the internet and social media is not and surprising and random as they claim. If we’re smart, we choose or ignore or even block what the interwebs has to offer!

  15. Zappa always said that if one were to cut up “We’re Only In It For The Money”, “Lumpy Gravy”, “Uncle Meat” and “Ruben And The Jets” into a thousand random pieces and assembled them into any order, it would all still make sense.

    Now I get to see if he was right! Thanks, Adrian!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *