I have to say that I honestly don't know how they do it. I listen to some relatively "different" stuff-- prefuse, mum, books, etc. -- but all of them, as "out there" as they are, have a certain grounding in familiar melodic and rhythmic patterns.
the last two autechre albums, by contrast, are unique (in my collection anyway) in the sense of utter, stupefied bewilderment they generate with each listen. I simply have no frame of reference for this. Yet, in certain moods, I find it an immensely satisfying listen.
As with confield, I find there to be something peculialy organic about this album, much more so than autechre's previous output. With all of the glitchery and oblique processed beats, it nevertheless feels as though there is something *alive* in this music.
Also like confield, I find this to be particularly good music to listen to when you don't feel like listening to music. There is something decomposed about it, something cannibalistic, something destructive... it's as if you're hearing the elements of music shredded, and smashed, and pureed, and strained, and then finally reconstituted -- into something that, miraculously, ultimately, reaffirms your faith in music.
If that doesn't help you understand the appeal of the new autechre, think of it this way: a lot of the essence of rock'n'roll lies in how *dirty* it is. But if the rolling stones are a pack of young ne'er-do-wells with grime on their faces and unkempt hair, autechre is a mossy, shapeless, moving hulk of mulch and smashed silicon chips, wired incorrectly and coming after you.
now, which is scarier?