On the aesthetics of elctronic disco music.

Robert · Post by **Robert** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:17 pm

After having waded through the users music section, I've been in turn, bemused, amused and exasperated by the relationship between the music and the comments relating to it.
I especially love comments like, 'you should have brought the strings in, say, 3 mins earlier' or, 'I loved that note you played around the min 7 mark'(!)
I couldn't face posting to all the uploaders so here's some questions open to all.

1. Where's the melody?
2. Why only one chord, or maybe two, for the whole song?
3. Why one time signature and why always 4/4?
4. Why only one tempo?
5. Why only one dynamic?
6. Why confuse 'energy' with loudness and 'busy'?
7. Why worry about the quality of reverbs and patches, when they wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the aesthetic of the music?
8. Why do all the sounds feel like they were found instead of looked for?
9. Does anyone play anything for more than one bar before quantising it and then looping it?
10. Does anyone ever put expression in their music?
And, lastly, but most importantly,
11. If you did any or all of these things it wouldn't be considerd 'right' or 'dj friendly' That must be bad for the future of music, musn't it?

Yours Robert

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:52 pm

Ooooooh!
I can't WAIT for the responses on this one!

I ditto every question, although we are in an age of minimalism and new MUSICAL ideas are few and far between.

As far as sound goes, I agree with Robert. Though people rave about this and that new synth, granular effects, vocoders, destructive synthesis, yada-yada, sound is sound and most people go with what's familiar to them somehow. It's imprinted in their subconcious. What I mean by that is, when I hear "Derb", I hear a Minimoog or a Prophet 5. All these so-called NEW sounds are all easily done with the dinosaur keyboards. It's the effects that make the true difference.

I believe that it's up to an individual's ear and knowhow of tweaking that makes the difference.

One last thing, most of the Techno people use TOO MUCH REVERB !!! There is such a thing as putting clarity in your mix. If you think that reverb-stacking is the way to go, all the power to you but I think that those who have the cleaner, less cluttered-with-effects mixes will survive much longer in this world of hero-today, who-the-hell-are-you the next day.

Any takers?

_________________
Paul R. Martin

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

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-07 19:53 ]

RedSun · Post by **RedSun** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:02 pm

Well, electronic beat based music is what a lot of people are listening to these days...

It's okay if you don't like it. Most of the questions you ask are actually qualities that are looked for in this kind of music.

Still, I can relate to your post. I would have said the same thing 6 years ago.

People change and tastes change. None of them are bad. It's just how people are.

RedSun .:.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:09 pm

disco? don't know many folks into disco these days . . .
that is funny, you don't have a single track posted here, and no links to a website in your profile.
it is clear that you don't like electronic music, but I don't see that you have an alternative to offer. or do you only play a computer keyboard?

put up, or shut up. i'm not taking your bait, with the classic "electronic-sucks blahblahblah" - don't listen to it if you don't like it! - and don't criticize if you have nothing to contribute yourself.

best,
joel

[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2002-03-07 20:12 ]

maket · Post by **maket** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:14 pm

Let's show for us ,as it must be!But,please not with piano and jazz harmony and not new age and all f****g ...

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 9:02 pm

I don't get it tho... Robert.. Ok, from the questions you're posing, I guess you're not just trying to cause a commotion. (unlike some other people I've seen) But where do you come from? What kind of background do you have? It's hard to understand when the only impression I get is... "the music you all make here isn't music"

I doubt music is all about changing the rules. Having very few chords, working in 4/4.. these are fundamental rules of the electronica games. If you break them, you're playing a different game. These are limits, and within the limits, expression is possible. Without limits, there is no common ground. Without common ground, you don't have medium to send a message through. Atleast that's how I see it.

But it is fairly common to try to break the 4/4 domination when people try to do "experimental" things. I've tried it. But I didn't like the results. How d'you do with the non 4/4 journey? I'm curious to know.

And the other things that you suggested to change... tempo, dynamics, etc.. many of these aren't hard at all to change. For me, I haven't really found much musical use.. It just makes a track un-dancable. So the reason why we keep these things untouched might not be within the musical realm. You have to understand how these people dance. Or, I say this because I personally come from a dance background.

7. Why worry about the quality of reverbs and patches, when they wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the aesthetic of the music?

Now I would agree totally with this. You can check out my other posts. I was pretty much saying the same thing.

11. If you did any or all of these things it wouldn't be considerd 'right' or 'dj friendly' That must be bad for the future of music, musn't it?

I dunno... Who judges if the future of music is good or bad? Music doesn't have to go from simple to complex, non-changing to ever changing. I just don't think it'll grow that way. The Intonumouri people did.. they thought everything will become so complex that it'll eventually reach noise. But they were wrong.

Anyway, I'm curious (probably many pulsarians are too) about who you are. What kind of musical background you have. It's just wierd for someone to have that "electro sucks, looping sucks, bravo classic, bravo analogue" type of attitude when most of us here are electronica people. Actually, many of us do both. So I'm not saying that the attitude is wrong.. A lot of people here would agree. But I want to know why you're making such a big deal out of it. You probably have a very good reason for thinking that way. Please be so kind as to share.

And yeah, as maket says, sharing your music would tell us a lot about you. So please don't hesitate to do so!

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-03-07 21:08 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:53 am

A specific reply about point 9: quantising and looping...

When you record direct to audio (assuming you're actually playing with your hands) you can't quantise, so strangely this ultimate of digital techniques can return a human touch.

But it is a bit odd to come here and dump on electronic music. Errr.. electronic music (to some degree) happens a lot around here - you know, soundcards and computers ? But it's by no means the only type of music in the world. Why not trot over to some classical music forum and ask: "Why do you keep on using all those old instruments?"

But if you've got ideas, let's hear them. I'm always fascinated to wonder what the next big style will be.... Maybe the start of it is in your mind.

borg · Post by **borg** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:28 am

music is a matter of taste, it's a subjective thing. need i say more. music i don't like, i simply don't listen too. but i wouldn't label it 'bad' (i'm not saying you did, robert

).

so you have this planetZ thing: people owning pulsar, luna or whatever, and they make all kinds of music. i say all kinds of music, and it is here on the site. i think you haven't listened to all the stuff yet. there's also fusion, acoustic, jazz, classic, folk,...

please, give it to us

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 8:21 am

Another thing just came to mind:
Most people in Electronic Music(of the type Robert is dumping on) have little if any musical education. Don't get me wrong, this is not about championning music school. I just want to state that a piece of music will develop according to a person's knowledge of theory and harmony.

This being said, a lot of composers who free-lance, like me, have to adapt to specific demands. I have to "compose" 40 Techno tracks for a work-out show. I am learning to appreciate the underlying aesthetics of Techno and House music. I am also finding out that this music IS about subtly shifting timbres.

Robert, if you DO know something about music theory, composition and orchestration, you should try to get past your preconceptions and compose a Techno piece. And try to write the BEST Techno piece EVER! You'll be amazed at the level of difficulty to attain perfection in this field. It's really all about loudness and restraint at the same time(well, that was one way to put it anyway)

1. Where ARE you from?
2. What's your background?
3. Is there something we can all hear and comment on objectively?

Are we having fun yet?

_________________
Paul R. Martin

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

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-08 08:21 ]

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-08 08:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-08 08:23 ]

coc999 · Post by **coc999** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:58 am

ouaa ouaa what a discussion,musical theory,music history,rythms,4/4,1,2,3,so many things interressant to discover.Hey Roberts all of us are in progression here so that's why if you need advices on something precise people are responding to others. Maybe for you dear Roberts some discussion are basic.But you should consider that we are a kind of cool data exchange free village,evrybody helps everybody sometimes it is basssic for geeks he he he.If i want to learn about Malher 3rd symphony or steve reich evoluate loops experimentation it is another triiiip

.See you all
Actually i do some 3d works for oil industry on silicon graphics with an old O2 station,it is really cool.Open unix shell and gooooo:)So that's why i participate less.bye boyzz & girlzzz
***Silicon are cool stations "and i am definitly not a geek" so i will talk and understand basic pulsar things***:)

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:41 pm

Hmmm. Interesting.

I think it's very easy to dump on dance music in general.

It seems very repetitive and not terribly creative.

I agree to a point and there is certainly a lot of dance music I don't care much for. But it's all about audience too.

I mean there's not much point playing a concerto at a Rave.

I come from a classical background and a lot of my music is melody based. However, one of the reasons I spend most of my time composing dance and electronica now is to test MY boundaries.

I would have though something like hard house would be easy. I mean there's nothing to it right?

WRONG! For me anyway.

I find electronica very tough to adapt to. There's not only the science of creating the sound, something I never had to worry about with a lot of classical and pop music. But there's the challenge of having themes that are not based on melody. Where many more instruments than just percussion actually work like percussion. Where incidental sounds and slight variations in what seems to be repetition can make or break a song.

I have written many "pop" style songs that I've been proud of, but I've struggled without a great deal of success to write a dance song that I'd display.

Interestingly though, I've written several 8 bar wonders of dance music that I've been excited about but couldn't seem to turn them into complete tracks. So if that's all it took in this "repetitive" genre, then why wasn't that enough for these compositions??

Because even something as seemlingly simple as dance music has it's only complexities and disciplines.

Robert · Post by **Robert** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:58 am

Thanks eveyone for the replies, the good, the bad and the ugly!
For the record, I am not having a go at the music, I am having a go at 'The Aesthetic' behind it.
The simple fact is; all the qualities that most discerning people look for in music, are totally absent in 'electronic disco music'.
So you actually like the music, so what? As I say, the asthetic behind the music requires you to do unmusical gestures, or at least, ignore as many musical gestures as you can.
Now the question I ask again is, (and what the first ten questions led up to);
Is that good for the musical future? If you really believe that we should have a type of music that doesn't do anything 'musical' at the forefront of our society, well fine.

And don't get the idea I don't like 'Pulsar'. I feel its a very good all-in-one solution for adding the electronic side to my music, without getting caught up in the 'I-must-have-everything' syndrome.

Yours Robert

[ This Message was edited by: robert on 2002-03-09 09:34 ]

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:49 am

On 2002-03-09 08:58, Robert wrote:

Now the question I ask again is, (and what the first ten questions led up to);
Is that good for the musical future?

Any style of music, whether it be Electronic Disco, neo-Prog, pure electro-acoustic or "stupid" Pop à-la Britney Spears is GOOD for the future of Music as such. I believe the only concern we as musicians should have is the fact that we live in a consumer orientated world and what we are exposed to the most is what record companies decide the consumers HAVE to buy.

I come from classical and Prog-Rock. I studied composition in university. The only thing I try to do is keep an open mind.

Remember one thing: Techno's fathers are Klaus Schulze and Tangerine Dream!

So, Robert, when are we going to get to hear something by you?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:59 am

It is wonderful that there are people who are so concerned with the future. It's a great oppurtunity to think about such things.

I'd suppose going a-tempo, a-chromatic, a-everything would be one way to go. But that leaves behind one important concept.. that both you and the other "most musically discerning" people might be missing. It's timbre. I think dynamic timbre animation is the way to go. It's a new concept that computer music has introduced, something that wasn't possible before. This is what a lot of the electro music is all about. Timbre animation. I guess you know that any given sound can be broken down into pitch, volume, and timbre. In order to bring out the dynamism in timbre, you leave pitch and volume pretty constant. Just as timbre was left static during the volume+pitch days. Get the picture? And frankly, this is the direction things are heading towards, whether it's mass-market electro, or academic computer compositions. I dunno about you, but I think trying to transcend the confines of volume, pitch, and timbre is actually very good for the future of music. It only gives you more sonic freedom. (not to say electro is using this freedom to its fullest potential tho..) And once you have that freedom, you can create rules to compose by.

So, I just don't see much left within the volume+pitch realm to fiddle with that's going to do any good for the future. These things still exist, but seem like concepts of the past. Yeah, I doubt not EVERYTHING within the volume+pitch realm has been explored yet. There's just way more to do in the timbre realm.

That said, hope you're doing well in your persuit for the musical future. And please do tell us a little about yourself.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-03-09 11:34 ]

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:37 am

Great post, Ken.

Electronic music is the Klangfarbenmelodie of today!

For those of you who don't know what that is, look up Anton Webern.
_________________
Paul R. Martin

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

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-03-09 11:39 ]

Robert · Post by **Robert** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:35 pm

Well, the planetz forum might seem a strange place to start the revolution but, hey, we've got to start somewhere!

I've had time to digest the replies to my post and I'd like to reply in a general sort of way.

Firstly, its not about sounds, if all the tracks were done with a general midi banjo patch then yes, but they're not. They're done with some of best equipment money can buy. Look beyond the style and the arrangement and study the musical thought behind it.

To the 'put up or shut up' brigade, well I hestitate to get involved here because what you say is normally sensible, but this is just laughable. Where does it say that you have to post music to be able to comment on what's posted? You put your music on an internet forum, then get excited if someone doesn't like it! (although I will never tire of saying, that it's not the music I don't like, but the aesthetic behind it). (I hope that just about squares it with my reply to DXL's post, maybe, maybe not)
As it happens I have posted here, the first track was completely ignored, which in retrospect was fair enough, but the second was just plainly misunderstood. Which leads me to believe that people are only interested in 'style' not 'content'.

To the people who've got a hang up about jazz, if you study jazz at the Guildhall School of Music in London, one of the priorities is the study of rhythm, are you saying that you can't learn from that? It seems you are stifling your musical expression for the sake of the 'aesthetic'.

To Kensuguro, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry! You say you've tried to be creative but it's better not to! Brilliant!

To Mr Spirit, this is a good one. You must of heard the capabilites of 'real' instruments, the range of expression, and with ref to Kens next post, the timbre, (which is DIRECTLY related to the volume and pitch of the instrument). Can you honestly say that Pulsar is capable of that range of expression?

To Borg, its irrelevent what style we are talikng about, it's the musical thought that goes on behind it. Its just that this particular aesthetic seems to have a wish to be as unmusical as possible.

Here's an aside; There are 3 reasons people make this music:
1. They have no talent (possible).
2. They have have talent but are lazy (again possible).
3. The Aesthetic demands that this is what the music should do (highly probable).
Which leads me to say that the Aesthetic is deeply flawed.

To Mr COC9, Thanks for the reply!

To Caleb, I mean to say, did you really intend to imply that there is not much point in doing anything so musical as playing an instrument at a rave? (!). And by the way, repetition is the key. The music repeats a lot within itself, then the radio stations repeat it to death.

To Paul's 2nd post, I DO keep an open mind, but I'm talking about musical expression and musical thought. If you've studied Compostion, (and Harmony presumably), you must HEAR what is happening, (or not happening, as the case may be), in the music, irrespective of style?
And I look forward to your seial/12 tone disco piece!

Well, thanks for taking the time to read my posts, it might sound ridiculous, but I believe in the 'Musical Truth', not in trying to find the next 'big thing', but in finding the best way of expressing yourself musically.

Yours Robert

[ This Message was edited by: Robert on 2002-03-09 17:38 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:09 pm

This is getting so obtuse that I think we need to call in Slartibartfast and Magic Thighs

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:00 pm

On 2002-03-09 17:35, Robert wrote:

And I look forward to your serial/12 tone disco piece!

[ This Message was edited by: Robert on 2002-03-09 17:38 ]

Sounds like a very interesting idea!

Hey Ken! Wanna help?

Robert, please don't think I was putting you down. I hope I have not conveyed anything that would make you think that. I really , really HATE Techno, probably for the same reasons you do. I was just trying to look at it in a positive academic way (although, I know academicians would laugh at me for trying).

This is a GREAT thread. Thank you very much for starting it, Robert.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:40 pm

To Kensuguro, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry! You say you've tried to be creative but it's better not to! Brilliant!

I don't think I understand what you mean by that... Care to clarify?

To Mr Spirit, this is a good one. You must of heard the capabilites of 'real' instruments, the range of expression, and with ref to Kens next post, the timbre, (which is DIRECTLY related to the volume and pitch of the instrument). Can you honestly say that Pulsar is capable of that range of expression?

Well, what I meant was exactly this... With real life instruments, timbre, volume and pitch was all one. Every one of these factors were related to each other. Computer generated sounds aren't supposed to be like that. It's about keeping all these factors separate. Or.. maybe it's just what I'm really into. Spectral morphing synthesis and other creative uses of stft leads to thinking this way.

But.. your right about the expressiveness. It's MUCH easier to play expressively on.. say, a chinese wooden flute, which is what I'm really into right now. At the same time tho, even if I can play expressively on the flute, it's got that signature sound that makes it only usable for asian sounding pieces.. Again, the restriction of timbre that lies within the physics of the instrument. THAT, you can't change.

Also, this is sort of different from saying that all trance/electro is good for the future of music. It's just saying that timbre is a vital concept within these styles, which is very worthwhile to experiment with. These styles are a great way to "work out" such a concept. Ya gotta work 'em muscle to become buff ya know what I mean?

On the down side, the usual on 4 treatment leaves the drum groove understanding on the low.. while it forces you to use the bassline+harmonic percussive elements to build the fundamental groove. Still a great workout tho.
But nothing changes my theory that learning to sing is the best work out yet. That's good for the future of music. You can't ever "over" learn the human voice. The more we learn about the voice, the more acoustic gimmicks we learn to use in new instruments. (tho it is sort of a reed instrument)
Heeey, and Paulmartin.. Aside from Nestor's experiment, and this thread.. we should do something together just for the heck of it! That'll be fun!

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-03-09 21:40 ]

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:25 pm

Robert wrote:
To the 'put up or shut up' brigade, well I hestitate to get involved here because what you say is normally sensible, but this is just laughable.

Your voice is yours, and use if for what you will, but people will respect it more if you can show an alternative which you are a part of - So far, you are reminding me of the anarchist revolutionary person that says "We gotta bring down this system, man, because it sucks!" - to which I would be justified in asking "And what do you propose we replace it with?" - I would not take your first statement very seriously if you then said "Gee, I don't have an alternative to offer, but that is not really relevant to the inadequacy of the paradigm you support." - So, in short, I think the "put up or shut up" comment is pretty fair. Your criticisms may be valid, but something is better than nothing . . .

As it happens I have posted here, the first track was completely ignored, which in retrospect was fair enough, but the second was just plainly misunderstood. Which leads me to believe that people are only interested in 'style' not 'content'.

Could you give the link please? I see nothing by "Robert" in the music forum . . .

Have you tried to appreciate electronic music in the proper context? I mean, this isn't the stuff that you would play at a tea party in a retirement home. Have you ever been to parties, and let down your ego and let your body go for awhile?

I used to think that all "hardcore music" [a la anarchist, vegan, straightedge music (chokehold, earth crisis, etc.)] was senseless, untalented, horrible crap. But then I went to some shows and spent some time listening it uncritically and fell in love with it. It is precisely not about melody, tempo changes, and odd time signatures, but about the expression of frustration and contempt with capitalistic consumer culture. It is the sound of an exposed nerve. And that is the aesthetic. That is why I like and appreciate it. Precisely because it is *not* pretty sounding.

The same for electronic music - If you are expecting high-handled melodies and such truck, you aren't looking for the right things. - The aesthetic is different, that is all.

I think you are wrong to say that your "aesthetic" is better [again, not sure what that is]. It sounds like you want to view electronica through your preconcieved idea of what "good" music is, instead of experiencing it for what it is, and making judgements later.

It is like someone going to an abstract painting show and complaining that the perspective and realism was completely horrid, and therefore does not constitute "real art." - This person has really missed what abstract art is!

that is enough ranting for now . . .
awaiting your links . . .