Just curious, feel free (like you'd ask) to say yours
 

Do you ever listen to a song, and simultaneously strip it off of all the 'experimantalisms' to check you like what's going on underneath first?

No, but I do sometimes re-imagine songs as acoustic for similar reasons.

yep, all the time.

Did it for most of animal collective's tunes,. and found nothing of value "underneath"

OMG MAN YOU CANT SAY THAT
YOU CANT SAY THAT NO
NO
YOU CANT SAY THAT
JUST CANT
SAY THAT
NO

And to answer the thread: not really, or at least, not consciously; maybe my mind does it for me, though

"experimentalisms"?

is that like gimmicky weird hooks and effects and whatever?

Quite a few SY songs have no immediately recognisable song-structures underneath. Take 'Protect Me You'. It has none, yet it's a perfect song.

huh
same could be said about Fennesz, oval, toral or alva noto; yet they're all outstanding artists producing blissful music.
You can't apply this transposition to just any band or song.
You're either pop or you're not. Doesn't mean you're bad if the hooks aren't there.

oh, recognizable song-structures

Then to the original question, yes, but I think I'm less intentional as in I might treat some heavy experimental stuff as filler and often skip it but I will return to it when I'm in the mood for floaty stuff and hope that the inner structure rises out of the sand, sort of speak.

If it never does (past a reasonable doubt) or the under guts turn out to be uninteresting, it goes back into skippable filler category.

But then again even skippable filler has its place.

All the people you mentioned are cool, but Im afraid they don't write 'songs', with the exception of Fennesz, who has written some.

edit - greedrex

oh so i have to dissociate "songs" and "tracks" then.
Will think about this before posting in the future.
twat.

nope, i think all parts are integral and i don't really know what experimentalisms are

What do you mean? I don't understand. Tracks are a generic way of calling music that is separated by a 'start' and 'finish' (depending on what people consider those two to be) timeline. Songs are songs, you know, like verse/chorus etc.

edit- greedrex

Noise?

is it?

It is when it's not something that you spontaneously use in your songs because it 'feels' that way. Yes.

I tend to evaluate songs on their ability to enhance a campfire experience. Actually, that's not true at all. I never do that. Although Protect Me You does strike me as a perfect campfire song, and may well be an incredible song for that very reason. It might also explain why I like NNCK. Very campfire. Very open air. But 'songs'. Hard to define i suppose, beyond the obvious. Do NNCK do 'songs'? Probably not, but they sound far better (I imagine) around a campfire than Neil Sedaka.

In answer to your question though: I don't know.

NNCK don't write songs.

did you ever see that pop punk band called kaito, they used to play a lot in london about 5 or 6 years ago, opening for other band? they were a four piece and three of them played pop punk, while the fourth one did a thurston moore nooise jam impersonation. they were basicaly rubbish. is that what you mean?

Yes, that's it. I think I've read of that name before, it sounds familiar, but I don't know who they are. I was thinking more of Wavves. I've listened to him on my mp3 player today, and I couldn't stop thinking how average the songs were underneath all that lo-fi barrage and volume. Which are put there deliberatley to make the songs sound more weird than they really are, let alone good.