On the aesthetics of elctronic disco music.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:41 pm

orbita wrote:

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

End quote

Hmm.....depends on your definition of aesthetics. Speed is not necessarily beauty...

orbita · Post by **orbita** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 2:12 pm

aesthetic doesnt infer beauty, checkout most modern art.

the speed in itself wasnt the point; there is plenty of fast music.

It was the contrast of live instrument played alongside fast sequenced music that is both unique and when heard live is quite impressive.

I highly recommend his work and his live performances are something!

But be wary of dancing to it, u get get yourself tied up in knots.

[ This Message was edited by: orbita on 2002-04-28 15:15 ]

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 2:16 pm

Not really a point, just some data:

SID was constructed by the same man who
constructed the Ensoniq VFX-Synth.

Hey Robert, I didn't mean to limit the composer's creativity or ability, but to do up sum "rules" just for experiment. Within these boundaries one can concentrate on certain components in a kind of close-up form one would not be able to without

Bach maybe thought, that music is mathematical ("Wohltemperiertes Klavier") wich is right to some degree (harmonic structures can be mathematically explained), but f.e. jazz showed with dischords wich weren't imaginable in Bach's times, that harmony is not all.

My opinion: Music ha NO rules or only those a composer makes. See Stockhausen, he used "clusters", Other modern classic composers use a black and white graphic as a note-sheet (that was in the 20ies...) to interprete. Next time it was used it had to be turned 90 degrees...
Quintessence:
In art generally there's no right or wrong.
One can judge into good and bad for himself.
Without any relevance for other people.
If you wanna make it "objective", you have to do some statistics - this is called "charts"

If you say "Bah, music for the masses must be bad" - make your own charts!
That's what is done by many magazines (Keyboards Magazine recommends subjectively what the authors like - if you are on the same wavelength, this could be some charts for you).
Robert, is this okay to you or did I miss the bus?

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:21 am

Robert, I do understand your taste tells you not to like techno, but there's some very complex and complete smart music out there. Check record Cie's like
http://www.fcom.fr/
http://www.somarecords.com/
http://www.undergroundresistance.com/
http://www.compost-records.com/

They are known as quality labels. Maybe you mistake Aqua (Barbie Girl?) with real quality techno.

coc999 · Post by **coc999** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:32 am

hello i love UnderGResistance(today it means a lot to me,cause i live in france) When i see "UR" reading your post Atomic it reminds me somethin happy.When i hear the firsts UR it was a really differrent sound from all the productions on air.It is a really "noble " label who has really contribute to the progression of electronic sounds.
One of my favorites tech records will be forever
UR number 020-mad mike and UR prod.
World to World.Sorry the year is not on the LP.
For the Esthetic...and more:)

Robert · Post by **Robert** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 5:38 pm

Well, thanks again for the replies.

I'm not sure if I have made my ideas/thoughts
very clear, so I've been giving the whole subject a lot of thought
and hopefully I've come up with an answer.

I've already mentioned, (in a rather pompous way), that I was looking for the 'Musical Truth', now I've amended that to a 'Unified Theory of Music' (even more ridiculous!).

Now, you might say that music is already a universal language, I disagree most strongly. It is, if anything,
the exact opposite. Look at all the genres, sub-genres and classifications and codefications. The problem
(but no means the only one) is a case of style (or image) over content. Or what I call the 'My Way syndrome'.
Here's some examples;
You get an interview with an artist, or a review, (normally of a 2nd album), and you hear things like - 'oh, this is a mixture of different styles', or 'an ecletic mixture of influences and styles'.
What they really mean is, it's the same song with a different drum-beat.
Or you get people who say, 'I love Peruvian pan-pipe music'. What they really mean is, 'I like 'My Way' or 'Bridge Over
Troubled Water' played by blokes on Pan-pipes. Or even that music, you must of seen or heard it ,played in the Greenwich Village / Covent Garden type areas of any big city, played on Chinese instruments, normally with a backing tape. When you listen closely what do you get? You've guessed it, 'My Way'!
Now, if you take away all the electronics and drumbeats from modern popular music what do you get?
Yes, essentially the same thing, 'My Way'.

Of course, there is also the Peter Gabriel / Sting way of doing things. basically import some 'weirdness' and hope your music sounds different. But that is merely superficial, like when Kate Bush imported Trio Bulgurka.

Now I'm not saying that nobody, anywhere does anything interesting, but the overwhelming feeling is one of repetition.

Someone mentioned Stockhausen, do you use his procedures and gestures? if not, why not?

My proposition, is to start from the inside and work outwards, not the other way round. The musical thought must be built upon a 'Unified Theory'. (and by the way, it has nothing to do with Jazz!).

Robert

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:59 pm

I believe that, since we have been exposed to music all our lives, it is impossible to "start on the inside". Music, as I see it, starts in the past, passes through individuals and groups, and heads off bravely into the future

.
Taking too much credit for "making it up" is very popular in the music culture today. I reckon all music should be shared, and all musicians looked after by communities that they write/retell the stories about

But seriously, music is largely about bringing people together. I have been welcomed into many cultures because of it, and all this music is continually flowing through me. I think other creative inspiration lies outside, too, - maths being my fave. And above all, discerning is strictly for the individual discerner.

Musical taste. Hmmmm. Is it about respect for other cultures/subcultures? I am thinking so.

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:02 am

Hi Robert,

finally I got the point what you mean.

With all this copy-catting around, you suggest to be brave and fade out all musical influences.

I tried this before, only to find out that I used some wll-known phrases subconsciously.

You ever heard of Kaspar Hauser? To invent totally new music, you have to prevent one from birth from listening to music.
Then maybe you'll get something new (maybe...).

Now I'm interested what you think about this.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:40 am

Zounds, I don't get it. Did Kaspar Hauser say what you wrote about creating new music? I just had a listen to one of his songs and it was like listening to the Archies singing in german...

I definitely agree with the statement about not exposing someone to music until later on in life. A friend of mine grew up with a deaf mother and his father was a travelling salesman(don't go there...

) The radio was never on, neither was the television set. The first music he heard was electro-acouctic music (Morton Subotnik, if memory serves) and he LOVED it.

The thing is he never did create anything new as he never pursued a serious career in music.

_________________
Paul R. Martin

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

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-04-30 05:41 ]

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-04-30 05:41 ]

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 12:01 pm

Hi Paul

Oh shit, is there really a musician out there who took the name of kaspar hauser?
I'm sorry for that, because the name should not be confused with that Kaspar Hauser living in the 19th century.
You can read more about him under this link:

http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/me/no ... auser.html

Don't forget to read the "footnote" there. Quite funny.

In short: Kaspar Hauser lived from birth on in a box and didn't have a any contact to people.
That for about 15 years...
(So I compared him with a person not knowing any music "roots").
He mysterically was said to have developped some strange abilities while living in a box, shutted away from the normal life.
I think there was made a film of his life just one or two years ago? Maybe not in the cinemas outside of germany

He also was said to be from an aristocratic bloodline, but the proof could not be made til now. He was murdered with a knife.

Just a little history-lesson, hope you liked it

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 12:17 pm

By the way, The birth-date of Kaspar Hauser is 4-30-1812

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:51 pm

I wonder if that 'keep away from' method would work. There's shurely a lot common musical experience genetically transfered which only varies from culture to culture, but not fundamentally.
Many Japanese people go crazy for Beethoven and I go crazy for the voice of Maki Nomiya (singer of pizzicato five).
And I don't hear 'My way' everywhere, but see it the other way round: a simple catchy tune is a much greater 'artistic' result than those artificially constructed complexities.
E-musicians reproducing classical notes like automata for the sake of extreme finger mobility are far less musical than the DJ who boils the place by a set hitting the vibes of the crowd.
Of course this excludes those 'Classics' who are really able to interpret the work of the composer, but imho that's the minority.
I write this from personal experience: there were times I jugded music similiar to Robert.
And I missed lot of great stuff and fun by that way.
Today I got me Kraftwerk's Computerwelt from 81 and a Capitol Swing disc from 57, 'Billy May plays for Fancy Dancing' from the record shop. I sent the 'Bangles' right after that and enjoyed all three

cheers, Tom

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:47 pm

yes astroman, that was what I wanted to say also.

that it is most difficult to re-invent the wheel , and the chances are high that finally you have another wheel.

So a composer may try to add something new and from his inners, but should not be ashamed of using known patterns in his own way, if it does his work good.

Robert · Post by **Robert** » Fri May 03, 2002 3:16 pm

This is fascinating;
Some people think I should get out and about and listen to more techno, while some people suggest I should live in a box for 15 years and forget I ever heard any music. Maybe I should compromise and live in a box for 7 1/2 years, just listening to techno.

I liked that quote about the wheel, but I could just as well say that you're all using 'ver.1.0' and it really can't handle the range of expression needed, so we need to re-write the programme to get it to 'ver. 2.0'.

Just for the record, I think you should listen to a lot of musics and try and divine their 'essence'.

There's not a lot more I can say on the subject now, except for three obsevations;

The first is that, I started this thread about the music in the 'music forum' and nobody directed me back there. (I hope to change that!).

Secondly, I get the feeling that, 'Yes, we understand what you're saying, but we like our way of doing things, its cosy and its comfy and we know what to expect'.

And lastly, its about time I put my money where my mouth is, or more to the point, my music where my mouth is, (or should that be my money where my music is? Who knows? Who cares?).

So, good luck and good composing.

Robert

zounds · Post by **zounds** » Sat May 04, 2002 4:42 am

I think you should listen to a lot of musics and try and divine their 'essence'.

Very right. By listening to different styles without prejustice you'll learn alot for your own music.

Great idea, Robert, close away for 7 1/2 years and then listen only to loud techno the next years. This would shurely push music in general to new limits <http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_ ... witch2.gif>

By the way, Microsoft has announced Music V2.1 to reach stores in November. Much better than the former versions, but still sum li'l bugs ("General intonation fault", "Serious exception-error in harmony at address 8080:FEFE:2323:ADAD"). But hey, who cares, Microsoft is the leader of the market, so why bother and rewrite any of the stuff ? <http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_ ... tflmao.gif>

I think this thread has now ev'rything in it.
Good luck to all you musicians and "music-makers" out there.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat May 04, 2002 6:48 am

If you'd deny music to someone, and then let them make music, they'll more likely make nonsense. All we do is a synthesis of what we've experienced and done, of whatever we've heard before.

To me, the goal is to make an original interpretation of your musical background. Listening to highly evolved music from most different kinds will allow you to create something unique, a pattern of colours which reflects your own background. It is rather difficult to mix different, at first sight incompatible, styles. That's when you can create good stuff, cos whichever way you look at it, you'd better learn from the best. Isolating oneself from culture wil not cause you to make a better new culture. If you isolate, you'll go back to stone age and go thru the whole learning process and evolution again.

What's important, is to have a good history. To be underlayed. To do that, you need a good insight of what's done before and better, what's been so great about your precedent musicians. I don't think listening to crap music from birth on will give you good oversight. Being born in a musical family or environment which appreciates and has good records, will teach you much more. Listening to Top40 music all the time will get you no where, except in the main stream. Mainstream is just a weak mix of what lives in the underground, the underground is where it all happens for me. But the underground also means it's not widely accepted, maybe because it has to sharp edges to be acceptable for large audience. But underground gives freedo to experiment and do crazy stuff, it's the lab where the base is created for commonly accepted stuff. People like Moby make good synthesis/crossover of different styles which none ever thought of before. In some way, Madonna promotes the underground too by picking up unknown artists, with an original style, and her fame in combination with the originality of her ever changing producers, is a benefit for both the 'famous' and the 'underground'.

Just a very quick list of idea's which jumped into my head,

at0mic.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sat May 04, 2002 1:46 pm

At0mic wrote: If you'd deny music to someone, and then let them make music, they'll more likely make nonsense...

I tend to disagree with this statement.

Someone I went to school with built a model of the major scale once(don't ask the specifics of how he worked it out....) and he wound up with something that looks like a DNA strand.

I believe that someone locked away without music from birth would probably discover the wonders of enharmonic thinking relatively quickly.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat May 04, 2002 8:52 pm

On 2002-05-04 14:46, paulrmartin wrote:
... and he wound up with something that looks like a DNA strand.
...

I wish, biochemistry was one of my main subjects

tvstatic · Post by **tvstatic** » Sun May 12, 2002 8:50 am

hi all.
So, i tend to agree with what Robert has to say and i have often thought of these things. I studied in a conservatory setting but spent my nights going to clubs and parties. Two years ago, i decided to produce electronic music with my new found musical theory. (i have been using midi for since my early teens) LIke others have said, it was and still is difficult to shape the sound to make something good. However, i also pay attention to the composition and what not as well. it can be hard to focus on all of the elements of music, though. In some ways, it is easier to compose a score by hand because you dont have to worry about getting the right timbre, or mix. but that is what makes the electronic medium the ultimate tool for any composer.

Robert talks about stripping music down to its elements to have just the music. However, you cannot take away the style from music. That gives it as much character as the melody and harmony. If you take away all the stylistic contrapuntal elements of Bach, for example, what you have left is a dead lifeless piece left. Style and substance go together.

I will "put up" now:
"23" a drum n' bass track in seven and there is even a modulation(a lazy one tough

"le yachting" an electronic arraingment of a Satie piano piece.

These are examples of trying to take the electronic dance genre into a more musical realm. AFterall, i agree that music IS univeral and the elements of rhythm, melody and harmony need to addressed.

ok.takecare all.gabino
http://www.mp3.com/dao
http://www.tvstatic.com

topaz · Post by **topaz** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 2:17 pm

I will attempt to answer your questions robert....

1. Where's the melody? >not all music is about melody..when your in a club and having a good time this is not the time to analize.

2. Why only one chord, or maybe two, for the whole song? >some of the greatest funk/acid jazz tunes where 1 chord grv,s.

3. Why one time signature and why always 4/4?
>same reason most music is 4/4 it,s easy to dance to. 1234..

4. Why only one tempo? > most dance tunes are between 125 and 150, fast and fun. you wanna smoke some weed and chill on some 78bpm hip hop ?

5. Why only one dynamic? > pass and void. chem bros.

6. Why confuse 'energy' with loudness and 'busy'? > no comprend'e >?

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?
> why tune your piano or change yer bass strings ?

8. Why do all the sounds feel like they were found instead of looked for? > your perception ? and after all the listeners dont give a hoot . qoute"

9. Does anyone play anything for more than one bar before quantising it and then looping it? > yeh check out masters@work

10. Does anyone ever put expression in their music? > look up ¬

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? > because a lot of music gets listen to in clubs the dance mixes are in sync with what is going down at that time

if you made an alan holdsworth style album would that get signed fast ?

there is plenty of (musical) electronic music out there you need to search..

by the way you didnt post a site with some of your music in any of the threads im sure we would like to hear how cool your stuff is maybe we can learn.

topaz
http://www.topazproductions.co.uk

On 2002-03-07 19:17, Robert wrote:
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