Tangerine Dream

a more sensible definition of randomness is required, one that does not contradict the intuitive concept of a ``patternless'' number. Such a definition has been devised only in the past 10 years. It does not consider the origin of a number but depends entirely on the characteristics of the sequence of digits. The new definition enables us to describe the properties of a random number more precisely than was formerly possible, and it establishes a hierarchy of degrees of randomness. Of perhaps even greater interest than the capabilities of the definition, however, are its limitations. In particular the definition cannot help to determine, except in very special cases, whether or not a given series of digits, such as the second one above, is in fact random or only seems to be random. This limitation is not a flaw in the definition; it is a consequence of a subtle but fundamental anomaly in the foundation of mathematics. It is closely related to a famous theorem devised and proved in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, which has come to be known as Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Both the theorem and the recent discoveries concerning the nature of randomness help to define the boundaries that constrain certain mathematical methods.



read while listening to TD

I find most of Edgar`s artwork fantastic!. It is one of the reasons I continue to buy CDs, I could do without the clutter, but I love the CD covers especially.

I could make out I uderstand it all but actually I would not be telling the truth, so I will just be honest and say I love looking at it, thats all.

Eventually I am going to have my own music room and I am going to have loads of Edgars art on the walls.

bigmoog wrote:[...]contradict the intuitive concept[...][...][...][...][...][...][...]characteristics of the sequence of digits[...][...][...][...][...][...]hierarchy of degrees of randomness[...][...][...][...][...][...]consequence of a subtle but fundamental anomaly[...][...][...][...][...]famous theorem devised and proved in 1931 by Kurt Gödel[...][...][...][...][...][...][...]concerning the nature of randomness help to define the boundaries that constrain certain mathematical methods.

read while listening to TD

is that bm over there, at the controls for the heart of the sun?

bigmoog wrote:a more sensible definition of randomness is required, one that does not contradict the intuitive concept of a ``patternless'' number. Such a definition has been devised only in the past 10 years. It does not consider the origin of a number but depends entirely on the characteristics of the sequence of digits. The new definition enables us to describe the properties of a random number more precisely than was formerly possible, and it establishes a hierarchy of degrees of randomness. Of perhaps even greater interest than the capabilities of the definition, however, are its limitations. In particular the definition cannot help to determine, except in very special cases, whether or not a given series of digits, such as the second one above, is in fact random or only seems to be random. This limitation is not a flaw in the definition; it is a consequence of a subtle but fundamental anomaly in the foundation of mathematics. It is closely related to a famous theorem devised and proved in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, which has come to be known as Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Both the theorem and the recent discoveries concerning the nature of randomness help to define the boundaries that constrain certain mathematical methods.



read while listening to TD

go on, look for the easy answer

Michael66 wrote:

Chris Monk wrote:I've been a scientist all my working life and find it impossible to think in the abstract.

Ok I may be totally, embarrassingly, utterly wrong but... the thing about the OTO cover is that it may be partly very scientific, not abstract. As far as I interpret it, it shows a winter solstice in two ways, scientifically and traditionally:



Here's a scientific daylight (sun hours) diagram over the course of one year. And here's the same curve, copied left and right for showing several years. Around the area where the "sun wheel" and the daylight curve meet on the cover, Edgar seems to have "capped" the curve. I've no idea why, but doing the same with the daylight curve linked above, we get this. Looks pretty much the same as the upper part of the red curve on the OTO cover to me.
Remembering that One Times One was (kind of) a Christmas release, here are two links that are interesting regarding the traditional/mystical part of the cover: Link 1, Link 2. Just look at the explanation for "Yule" at Link 2 - I've no idea what the Ravenwood church is about, they just had the nicest sun wheel.

Do you know what Michael, that one did sort of cross my mind.


....but it's about the only one.

Chris Monk wrote:Do you know what Michael, that one did sort of cross my mind.

....but it's about the only one.

A Christmas release showing "old" Christmas (winter solstice) on the cover made somehow sense to me...
If (big IF) the cover indeed works that way, I also haven't noticed Edgar doing something similar on any other cover artwork. That's why I said I often find Ed's covers so unfathomable... I don't know much about art, so if Edgar works snippets of paintings, or portraits of people into his cover artwork, I won't get it. Who's the guy middle left on the cover of Dalinetopia for example?

Chris Monk wrote:

Michael66 wrote:

Chris Monk wrote:I've been a scientist all my working life and find it impossible to think in the abstract.

Ok I may be totally, embarrassingly, utterly wrong but... the thing about the OTO cover is that it may be partly very scientific, not abstract. As far as I interpret it, it shows a winter solstice in two ways, scientifically and traditionally:



Here's a scientific daylight (sun hours) diagram over the course of one year. And here's the same curve, copied left and right for showing several years. Around the area where the "sun wheel" and the daylight curve meet on the cover, Edgar seems to have "capped" the curve. I've no idea why, but doing the same with the daylight curve linked above, we get this. Looks pretty much the same as the upper part of the red curve on the OTO cover to me.
Remembering that One Times One was (kind of) a Christmas release, here are two links that are interesting regarding the traditional/mystical part of the cover: Link 1, Link 2. Just look at the explanation for "Yule" at Link 2 - I've no idea what the Ravenwood church is about, they just had the nicest sun wheel.

Do you know what Michael, that one did sort of cross my mind.


....but it's about the only one.

No it’s not a play sun it a real thing maybe it Edgar take a slap shot.
Too me it look real thing.

Having been around the gallery 2 years ago, and having seen a lot of his work on the CDs, I must admit I'm not a huge fan of Edgar zoom-o-graphics/montage CD covers unfortunately. It often all looks a little bit Photoshopped to me; a collection of unrelated images brought together to create something that might possibly be seen as surreal, yet shallow. His over-use of recognisable objects to suggest metaphor is perhaps why I think his work lacks genuine depth. Images of clockwork mechanisms to represent either the passing of time or the inner workings of the mind are all well and good, but once you've deciphered the simple metaphor, there's little else to interest you.

I much prefer TD's artwork to be open to interpretation (much like the music is) rather than dictating what to feel or think. TD's music has always meant different things to every listener, and I prefer the artwork to do the same thing. TD's best covers for me have been the abstract ones, like Ricochet, Tangram, Underwater Sunlight and DM4, because they contain abstract, diffuse or graphic images that have no apparent meaning, context or relation with the music. You can never explain, solve or interpret the image. And that's what I like because it goes hand-and-hand with the music, which of course, has the same qualities as we all know!

exit81 wrote:TD's best covers for me have been the abstract ones, like Ricochet, Tangram, Underwater Sunlight and DM4, because they contain abstract, diffuse or graphic images that have no apparent meaning, context or relation with the music. You can never explain, solve or interpret the image. And that's what I like because it goes hand-and-hand with the music, which of course, has the same qualities as we all know!

I find that interestingly the abstract covers are also the most "natural" looking ones - you mention Ricochet, Underwater Sunlight... I like those too. I wish he'd do something like that again, or in the style of Alpha Centauri/Zeit/Atem. We almost live in a photoshopped society, so it's always refreshing for the eyes to get something different that looks organic, natural or handmade.

exit81 wrote:Having been around the gallery 2 years ago, and having seen a lot of his work on the CDs, I must admit I'm not a huge fan of Edgar zoom-o-graphics/montage CD covers unfortunately. It often all looks a little bit Photoshopped to me; a collection of unrelated images brought together to create something that might possibly be seen as surreal, yet shallow. His over-use of recognisable objects to suggest metaphor is perhaps why I think his work lacks genuine depth. Images of clockwork mechanisms to represent either the passing of time or the inner workings of the mind are all well and good, but once you've deciphered the simple metaphor, there's little else to interest you.

I much prefer TD's artwork to be open to interpretation (much like the music is) rather than dictating what to feel or think. TD's music has always meant different things to every listener, and I prefer the artwork to do the same thing. TD's best covers for me have been the abstract ones, like Ricochet, Tangram, Underwater Sunlight and DM4, because they contain abstract, diffuse or graphic images that have no apparent meaning, context or relation with the music. You can never explain, solve or interpret the image. And that's what I like because it goes hand-and-hand with the music, which of course, has the same qualities as we all know!

I agree with this

as a long term fan of the tangerine dream totality: music, cover art and and er, clogs....

...I find that the package of music and art over the years is very much like dali (I have said this before, but maybe not on this forum), ie....dali was an artist like any other with periods of power and insight and periods of woeful commercialism dressed as masterpieces, he became a sausage machine......[BM states the obvious...]

many of TD/EFs cover art is imho a pure expression of the artistic muse, the viewer can take whatever they like from the work...something or nothing, for me some of the cover art deserves a place in surrealist history (because, yes it is super real....). Perhaps even a Z-O-G as the result of an artistic process deserves study-if one so wishes.

I quite like Edgar's art myself. I'm not that concerned about how they were produced, I just know that I like looking at them. I can also understand why he uses computers. This is a guy who's busy writing and recording music, rehearsing shows, producing DVDs, etc., he doesn't have the time to sit down with paints and an easel to knock off a bit of fine art. All IMO of course.