On the aesthetics of elctronic disco music.

Compare notes on how to get the most from Scope devices, etc.

Moderators: valis, garyb

User avatar
kensuguro
Posts: 4434
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
Contact:

Post by kensuguro »

Doesn't it scare you sometimes... that a form of music that you couldn't appreciate or comprehend exists? Shutting out information... or called ignorance in some areas.. is one of the most creatively destructive acts.

I'm just saying this because seeing how you've completely shut out electronica, there are chances that you've shut yourself away from many, many types of music. Not knowing is dangerous!

Loving it, and living the life of an electronica freak is one thing.. but understanding why it exists, understanding why people appreciate it.. is another thing. You don't just sit and laugh at it and pretend it shouldn't be there.

Atleast that's what I think, and I think it's the general pulanetZ attitude we try to uphold. That's why jazz/fusion, classic (lhong.. haven't seen him around lately), trance, breakbeat, d n b, house, 'lectro, complete "what in the world..", all sorts of ambient, new age, and even pop dance music can coexist. And we do coexist quite beautifully. It's also a very good place to learn something that you wouldn't have learned if you were doing only one style (or a set of aesthetics). PlanetZ is a place to broaden your mind. Not narrowing it down.

Nobody can dictate what "music" is Robert.. if you haven't noticed already. Music is the phenomenon that is built by its makers. As long as electronica has existed, and will exist, every time you say "music", electronica will be a part of it, even if it means a part of its history. And as a result, "aesthetics" as a whole would include the aesthetics of electronica. If it doesn't, then that means there's something you must of left out. If your idea of music isn't whole, you really can't talk about the entire concept of music.
caleb
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by caleb »

Robert,

I did not intend to imply any such thing.
What you infer is your business.

The statement I was making was quite elementary and it was about audience not really about instruments as such. I'm sorry you didn't get it - I didn't think it was that difficult.

And your comment about repetition was actually quite interesting, as repetition is what makes most music, including classical a success in many ways.

However, you seemed to be making a joke rather than any serious statement.

The point I was making is that I find dance music challenging and rewarding because it pushes my boundaries. That the challenge of making a song enjoyable without relying principally on melody is worthy of my time.

Now what does that say about the future of music??

I'm not sure really. It isn't a bad question, but we're still seeing the influences of our past classical composers in our pop and alternative musicians of today - occasionally anyway, even through some fairly big paradigm shifts in musical appreciation. So I don't know if the ideas like harmony and melody are going to die for quite some time yet.

But there's so many positive things still to come that we can help to achieve Robert. We can still bring melody back if we want to - it's up to us.

We can play a violin at a Rave and I bet it could go down brilliantly. My previous post was not actually anti this idea at all.

We could play a synth with our voices, make rhythmic flutes and sounds that weave tapestries of both melodies and harmonies if we want to.

I agree that commercial music is such that experimentation is not usually a successful undertaking, but we are not commercialism - we are the people out there who really will shape the direction that music is going eventually. We are the people who will make our music and market it to people all over the world through media such as the internet. We will be responsible for the future.

God this is sounding so much like evangelism I could puke, but I guess I'm over-emphasising to make a point.

If you don't like where music is heading - take it in a different direction. You might find more allies around the world than you may think. Maybe a few people will flame you, but there are many others who will have a similar ideal - start posting.

I'm interested in hearing the music you are interested in writing. Where do you want music to go?
Caleb

Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
coc999
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Idonotknowanymore
Contact:

Post by coc999 »

On the esthetic of...
Roberts i would like to say that i can understand you feeling about the "trusting" of elecronic
techno music in media world(the paradox is that we are on an electronic network to discuss he he:)
The reasons resumed like this : cheap to produce,it doesn't
oblige you to make travel a band with airplane,there is more solo artists than bands(even if this tendance is back),a hiiiiit :smile:can be composed,produced from your house(for distribution and promotion it is another story).If you look demography there is lot of young people on our mother planet.that why electro has find a special place in music spectrum
Techno music is a "multiface" art,i can not see it ,only like a music.It is a kind of box where everybody can express and put what he needs(that's why i'm probably here today)lot of people are recognizing them selves in it.that's why it is inevitable to have the worst and sometimes the best.
I remember in end 80's Police,medias,radios,discoclub boss, were trying to stop this energy
even politicians was using it for elections.For hip hop it was easier cause politician see that the kids of ghettos can be "regulated" easily.(Yes in paris area we have ghettos too)
I remenber the kind of discussion beetween musicians and "the barbarians" it is an eternal discussion.ONe consider himself on right place the otHer want to put him down.The conflict is created.For me the ultrapositive thing is that Electronic "music programattion" have an easy access.Today every kid that has the dream to try to do some sounds can find somewhere a computer with a program in it and try to progress and it is fun they don't know nothing about harmonies,rythmics structure...they use there feeling and for some of them progress.Give a rebirth to a 4 years old child you could be suprised (ps:for computer access Ok surely noaccess in more than 50% of this planet).Electronic is now in our live we are the first Robosapiens generation.
We ArE THE RobOtS was singing a german band.What alternative?Pulsar and truth yeah yeah.
Hey rob if i've conviced you my ego will be shining today he he he.see you all:)
User avatar
paulrmartin
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by paulrmartin »

By the way, Robert, i believe you missed the point about Webern and Klangfarbenmelodie.

This term means Timbre-melody. I think a lot of people here would agree with me that Electronic music is very much today's Klangfarbenmelodie. My statement had nothing to do with the 12-tones system. But I sure like the idea of trying out a serial piece with a really energetic breakbeat!

Let's just do it! :smile:
Are we listening?..
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

it's all good.

('cept when it isn't)
Robert
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London

Post by Robert »

Well once again, thanks for the replies. It's certainly made me think!
You may, or may not be, interested to know that I was very nearly convinced, but much to my relief, I found myself doubting again!
I do know one thing though, it takes a heck of a lot of time to answer coherently to a lot of good posts!
Anyway, I'll just say this for now, I haven't closed my mind off to anything, it's precisely because I've been listening with open ears that I have the doubts I have. (And, I wasn't talkng about 'electronica'. Electronica is what I sort of want to do!).
This is my dilemma, after three years of composing music with boundries and restrictions how can I justify doing it for another unspecified time?
As far as I'm concerned, anything that stifles musical expression is a flawed concept. And, again, I am NOT talking about Electronic Music in general! (although only using elctronically produced sounds is a restriction). I am talking about musical aesthetics that require you to do things in a certain way. There is a lot of things that come under that heading, it's like saying that if you play the violin, it must be held under the chin. Why? That is the only aesthetic I understand, that there are no rules as long as there is a coherent musical thought behind it. John Cage had a good idea when he put objects in his piano.
I seem to remember that Kraftwerk started out trying to be as 'unhuman' as possible. Well fine, even though you're already restricting yourself, you still must be able to see some musical logic behind it. The concept is not enough.
Now this is the weird bit, let's take jazz, it is capable of huge complexity, (and simplicity) and musical expression, but it is still limited by boundaries. As soon as you change certain features it ceases to be what it is. Now, how do you make music that doesn't do that, that is pure expression?
All the rest of what you say might be true, but this is my fundamental point. Maybe this thread should be called 'How to make music that can't be categorized?' Is it impossible? I hope not!

Yours Robert
maket
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Post by maket »

Dear Robert,may you be more certain please.I think you can send the scores,music theoretical articles .
You know,people here send not only finished music,becouse here is laboratory for thoughts,technical Q ets...
You'll help for that revolution,wich you mean if you'll do something what can help.
I'm interested about sonore technics for symphony orchestra.May you give some advice?
Specifical Harmony ? Harmony and time connection at this point?Resonable chords?
Timbral combination ?
I'm also interested about afro-latin style in jazz.May you send some scores ,chords,rythmical patterns?
Let's make some conversation at musical level.
To begin conversation i'm posted little frame of music ,were i'm trying simulate strings group of orchestra. I'll be glad to hear some suggestion for developing this frame
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=17&0

It could be nice new topic at planetZ,something about composing technicues
User avatar
paulrmartin
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by paulrmartin »

Robert, you're seeking Utopia. It is the search for order that makes human beings categorise everything, be it music, visual arts, even medical practices for that matter. This is a rather unfortunate by-product of living in a consumer orientated world, everything HAS to have a name and/or title.

You say you want pure expression, I believe that this is only achieved when the composer is by himself hearing his music in his head. I believe that this is the purest form of expression. I don't think that any amount of technical knowhow or any amount of musical education can convey the pure feeling a composer has as he hears a composition unraveling in his head. I have felt this many times and have been able to only partly infer as to what I felt to the people who have heard the end product of trying to reproduce these compositions.

We are ALL on the right track! :smile:
We are ALL doing great music! :smile:
Let's keep doing what we are doing! :smile:


_________________
Paul R. Martin

I think I may get the hang of this after all!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-10 18:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-10 18:47 ]</font>
maket
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Post by maket »

first time TOTALLY AGREE :smile:
User avatar
kensuguro
Posts: 4434
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
Contact:

Post by kensuguro »

Ha, finally we're getting some real Robert juice. Now we're talkin'!

The boundry issue sure does bug me at times.. I've spent time thinking of many different ways to over come it.. I used to think fractal was really dope. A text that builds its own context can stand by itself, in its own world. But then, using fractals in a musical sense was just too hard, too tough on my ears. Plus it took away that "this piece is under my control" feel... Mathematically, though, I thought it was very appealing...

I've also looked into the categorizing issue that Paulmartin was talking about.. actually I studied a bit of cognitive science in college. It seems the categorizing has a lot to do with the way our brain remembers things. Basically, it can't remember if it can't categorize it. (either it's just too strange(mental process) or it's too fast/short(sensory limits), etc.) And that's why we have words, grouping, sub groups, priorities, grammer. And unfortunately this applies to anything that enters the brain, including music. So I guess you could say that THIS is your ultimate limit, a limit that you just can't beat. But given this limit, it's really cool to explore everything else like John Cage did. I wished I could treat a piano the way he did. :lol:

From other things that I know, what you seem to be getting at, is a problem that was discussesed in the field of semiotics, or iconography. It was quite a while back, this French dude called Suassure was talking about the difference between let's say, a word "dog" and a picture of a dog. One uses man built rules, and the other is a direct implication of the original. So what you're saying is you'd rather quite with using man built rules to express.. and go with the raw, dog picture concept. Visually, that's possible.. Aurally.. who knows. It's much easier to do visually because first of all, we know a dog. We've seen one.. and it's common knowlege for most people. So by drawing a dog, you'd be able to communicate the thought. There is that definite connection between the medium (the picture) and the idea (dog). As long as there is that connection, you'll have to rely on pre-learned knowlege. If you break that connection, you don't communicate. Which is a great form of art anyway. Only drawback is, if nobody understands it, nobody can build on it, and the only person who can work on it is you. The underlying problem of modern, contemporary art the way I see it.

As you say, Jazz, or almost any other style of music siezes to be what it is as soon as you change a feature. This is how specific things are getting. It's almost too specific. But this just goes to show how developed the chromatic, 4/4 game is. The main reason that this game has developed so much is because it has limits. Limits keeps things in focus. It lets people build on top of what other have built. Limits give you a context a norm, so when you do extraordinary things it stands out properly, or you are able to measure how much it stands out.

Computer music, which is also what I studied, is a borderline situation. Sure math is the limit, csound or max/MSP is the common tool. These limits are very wide range.. ranging from trance/techno all the way to just complete waste of time. The outskirts of the limit are close to nonesense.. sure, it's probably as close to being totally free. It's pretty much pure.... SOUND. You can do what ever you want. But the logic behind it is usually poorly presented, partially because the composers are speaking their own language.. So I stop trying to listen for any logic and go into 'just listen to the sound' mode. And some of the pieces are quite pleasing to the ears. But that's it. It's a simple sensory happiness that has more to do with biology than the mind. Kind of like drugs, or sex. But there are also pieces that are beautifully composed.. wasn't chromatic at all, but you could feel harmony... I was just surprised that you could build harmony in non chromatic tuning.

So this is what I think.. Sure, experimenting once in a while is good learning experience. Breaking the rules is cool too. But when you can't communicate what you're trying to convey.. or if you're doing things that hinder the communication, then I think that's over doing it. But that is if the point of the piece is communication. To me, it all depends on the concept of the piece.

dblbass has a better understanding than me on cognitive science tho. I wonder if he's around.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-03-10 20:25 ]</font>
caleb
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by caleb »

I had gone to the trouble to write something further but it didn't end up saving.

Doesn't matter though because Kensuguro said most of it anyway and, quite frankly, a lot better than I was saying it.

I always like to think of labelling, categorisation or naming was really the first science. I used to argue that the reason the name of God would have been so important way back in those early days was because naming in general was so important. Our only understanding of things would have been by the name we had given them.

Of course, once that was done, we developed further ways to explore and understand the world around us - but naming/categorising hasn't lost all it's appeal.
Caleb

Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
User avatar
zounds
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Munich /Germany
Contact:

Post by zounds »

Hey dudes, I LOVE this thread!

Just to contribute my part to it:

Limitation to certain specifications can be a beautiful thing, because as ken said you focus more on the parts left to "edit" and chances are good that you bring them to a higher level than you would have reached without limiting.

Sounds a bit confusing, but I'll give you an example:
Youth today has grown with computers like the Commodore 64. This computer was very popular and it was most easy to do some multitracking on it. That on the one hand.
On the other hand, there were hard limitations: Only three voices or channels at the same time ("three times polyphony"), only synthetic waveforms (triangle, rectangle, sawtooth, noise) which you could mix a bit and alter a bit, and a changeable filter (Highpass, Notch, Bandpass, Lowpass).

Now the conclusion: Few composers got something very musical out of the SID (C64-soundchip) and managed with tricks to "put a complete orchestra" into this little chip with using NEW methods of sounddesign like arpeggio-chords, basedrum-attacked basslines and other stuff.
That was the interesting part of this "experiment", what has still a huge fan-community. Just browse the internet with keywords like SID, C64, "Rob Hubbard", and you'll see what i mean.
Otherwise, there were sooo many kids having the opportunity to do music without proving their talents before. So there's also lots of ugly music with octave-bouncing basslines, transposed two half-tones from time to time and so on.
Without knowing that background and just listening to SID-music, one would consider it "not being music" because of it sounding VERY synthetic and "screamy", with many loud high frequencies.
But if one opens his mind and switches perspective to those few artists who broke into new dimensions BECAUSE OF the limitations, he could probably get very involved into this special kind of music.

Many talented of the former "SID"-composers got into real music-business nowadays. They wouldn't be there if they didn't try this experiment with that SID.

Myself was getting involved into composing the same way.

I hope that with these many words I managed to make clear that limitation can be a strong weapon.

Maybe I just made you nosy. For more to hear, get the "sidplug" for your browser and look with your search-achine for the HVSC (High Voltage Sid Collection).
You may also go to remix.kwed.org and download
some free remixes of SID-Songs done with professional equipment (load these with the bright red smileys).
These remixes were done by geeks who love the comprimated musicality in these little SID-ditties.

OKOK, I'm a nostalgian, but maybe my contribution to this thread is some use for someone here...
User avatar
kensuguro
Posts: 4434
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
Contact:

Post by kensuguro »

I personally LOVE the SID.. was thinking of getting a SID box (the one that looks like a phone) but the proce sort of turned me off. I wonder if people can turn a Nintendo or a Genesis or even a TG16 system into a musical instrument.. would be fun and nostalgic. :smile:
caleb
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by caleb »

I actually bought the VSTi QuadraSID which is an emulation of the famous chips. Sounds pretty authentic and Chris Hulsbeck (spelling) loved the thing himself.

I've got quite a few SIDs from the old C64 games downloaded and I like to listen to them.

What I always found interesting was that my brother who is a guitar-based musician/composer absolutely LOVES a lot of those old SID tunes. Once I put him on to a MAC SID player and directed him to the HVSC etc. he was happy. I'm sure I'll never see him again because he also found the MAC C64 emulator and is downloading games by the truckload from c64.com
Caleb

Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Retro
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Post by Retro »

I got myself the QuadraSID too :smile: The C64 was the machine that inspired me to become a sound engineer, and later an electronic musician. Perhaps ironically, it was this path that led me to appreciate "real" instruments and even classical music.

I've come to the understanding that the real definition of music is a deeply personal thing. Music is any sound that moves you, and we all have the right to create those sounds regardless of our technical sophistication.

Cheers,
Retro
Robert
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London

Post by Robert »

Thanks Zounds for your reply, but I'm afraid you're looking at everything upside down!

As far as I'm concerned, there are two types of limitations: One that you impose on the music, and the one that music imposes on you, the composer.

The scenario that you talked about is NOT a limitation on your 'creative' ability. Trying to compose a certain kind of music is.

It looks like another example of the 'if-I get-a-new-synth-my-music-will-be-awesome syndrome. By that, I mean that new synths/sounds will somehow replace musical thought.

Here's an example, a few years ago there was a 'hooked on classics' phenomena. Well that was played with a symphony orchestra, but it was AWFUL! Then there was Trio's 'Da da da da,' now that was good. Guess which one had the technical limitations?

Robert
User avatar
paulrmartin
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by paulrmartin »

On 2002-04-27 06:15, Robert wrote:

It looks like another example of the 'if-I get-a-new-synth-my-music-will-be-awesome syndrome. By that, I mean that new synths/sounds will somehow replace musical thought.


Robert
Musical thought, perhaps not.
Sonic thought, absolutely!
Let me expand: I just finished this contract for a workout show on TV, as a lot of you know. In the previous years I was using a Roland CM-64 and SoundCanvas. Last year I used a Roland XV-3080 exclusively. This time around I only used computer-based synths, samplers and effects. My compositional thought processes have remained just about the same but, having a much wider sonic palette, I found myself thinking much differently in timbral terms.
Are we listening?..
orbita
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: A Strange Place, Far Far Away

Post by orbita »

Since when did lack of expression and repetitiveness have any relation to poor
aesthetic?

listen to 303 Metronome by Pablo Gargano. A Very simple trance tune with 1 bleep that runs twice a bar for about 4 minutes with little variation other than distortion and filter resonance.

listening to that has given me sensations I have only ever experienced on good psycadelic "enhancements" :smile:

To me thats good music, even if it isnt "musical" in the traditional sense.

Surely when looking forward its wise to keep a check on whats happened but Not let ourselves be restricted by it.

Listen to Aphex Twin to know what I mean. Some of the finest electronic music ever produced. Often completely devoid of melodies but extremely involving. Its ALL about the sounds and how sounds bounce off each other - surely thats what music is about. Whether its the Tone of a sound or the Pitch of a sound or the Length of a sound that changes, its Still a sound and some one has had to make a desicion as to how that sound has been manipulated.

I think its fair to question the "quality" of alot of electronic and especially dance music that is made for the clubscene. Allot of it is dire. But just becuase it happens to be electronic doesnt mean that the essence of electronic music is wrong or bad.
It just means that those artists arnt particularly inventive or creative.

Check out Squarepusher, Tosca, Plastikman, Pablo Gargano, Union Jack, Laurent Garnier, Orbital, Dave Clark, Daft Punk, Freddy Fresh, Ninja Tune, Mr Scruff, Nightmares on Wax etc etc etc

All electronic music. All inventive. All musical. But probably not a trained classical pianist amongst the lot of them.

Did you know Squarepusher plays live Bass to 200+bpm breaks :smile: now tell me that doesnt have aesthetic!

Question it all you want, but surely a creative masterclass would be more useful. How about suggestions as to how to Avoid making dull music. Interesting things to do to help inspire ones music or techniques to improve composition.

If you have training in Jazz why dont you reveal some of the things you have learnt, help us to understand the essence of it so that others may go away with 1 more tool in their toolbox of musical tricks.

Music should be about what you want it to be.

Music fullfills many purposes in our life. Some create it for their own pleasure, some to make big bucks, some as a form of expression. Different music is relevant in different ways.

Why do young kids like the spice girls or steps or any other teen pop band? Its precisely because it is "Uninvolving".

Most popular rock/pop music is very simple. repetitive chord sequences, limited melodic changes.

Listen to The Police, ever song they wrote had one interesting riff repeated into infinity. How much better or worse is that than todays dance music?
It's just produced for different audiences - the relevance is the same.

There is the old popular vs quality arguement. people always say they want good quality, but ultimately they take the easy option. look at TV. People say they want documentaries and interesting programs yet Soap operas and game shows get the highest ratings. Populist culture pays.

So to say electronic dance music is uninventive is a pointless arguement. Its precisely that uninventiveness that makes it successful!

If you make interesting/involving music you are demanding much more of your listener.

The kind of music you are attempting to make is up to you and its success or quality can only be determined by the reaction of the audience it is aimed at.

Ok im waffling into obscurity now ill shutup..


one other thing.. Have you ever tried dancing to music that changes tempo!!
Its extremly dangerous!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: orbita on 2002-04-28 09:31 ]</font>
orbita
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: A Strange Place, Far Far Away

Post by orbita »

oh and as for jazz!

some of it is lovely, great for sunday chilling.

but some of it just seems to go on and on with no real purpose.

It can be as complex as you like but if It starts to annoy me after 2 minutes there has got to be something wrong with it, or is that the point?
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8406
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

On 2002-04-28 09:03, orbita wrote:
oh and as for jazz!

It can be as complex as you like but if It starts to annoy me after 2 minutes there has got to be something wrong with it, or is that the point?
it don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing... :smile: the Duke

the guys from Kraftwerk were said to be academically educated classical musicians refusing any virtuoso behavior. That rocks.

funny, how many SID lovers are in this forum.
Me too, I got one called HardSid on an ISA board with a midi driver by some guys from Hungary.
That thingy really lives, got it's own analog kind of understatement.
The design was far ahead of it's time and deserves a place in the all-time-classics hall of fame.
And it has it's beauty, too. I don't see that big fundamental difference between electronic and acoustic music.

cheers, Tom
Post Reply