On the aesthetics of elctronic disco music.

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

Moderators: valis, garyb

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

Post by Robert »

Thanks for your list Mr. Topaz, but I think you failed to answer most of my questions:

The whole point about what I'm saying is, why do the things that matter most in other types of music, fail to have any relevance
in 'disco' music? Melody? 'Don't need it'!, Harmony? 'What for'!, Dynamics? 'Who'll notice'!.

So what if one great song uses only one chord, do you have to do them all like that, sounds like laziness. And as for the 4/4 is easier to dance to bit, what about the waltz and stuff like that?, sounds like fashion to me.

I did an experiment the other day, I taped three different types of radio station and the commercial/rave ones were all virtually
one dynamic, no peaks, no troughs just a straight line. The classical/arts one had all sorts of dynamic curves. So here's a lesson, if you do put dynamics in your music, compress them so that they all are at the same level!

My energy bit is quite simple, just because something's loud or has fast moving lines doesn't mean it has 'energy'. As far as
I'm concerned 'energy' means compositional/performance detail.

And so on.

I'm not concerned whether you think I should like this type of music or whether you like it, I'm primarily concerned about its
aesthetics, the reasons behind its construction.

In fact, I think I've found an answer! Its my new musical invention - Hypnotech, (or Hypnotek if you like). You will
shortly be seeing the first fruits of my musical endeavours.

So watch this space for 'Hypnotech - Random Melodics, Cell Harmonics to a world beat.

(It took me longer to think up the title than it did to write the music).

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply

Robert
topaz
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by topaz »

mmmm..

you need to talk to some guys that are into
dance music styles other than the stuff you tuned into on kiss fm.

ummm 3/4 waltz probably wouldn,t go down well in most clubs other than derby and jones lunchtime bash.

again not all dance music is linear 1 chord tosh, I can only direct you to some modern disco music that is not like that. so here goes.

bob sinclar
masters at work

and even some of my own stuff although not strictly disco
http://www.topazproductions.co.uk

there are many forms of dance music and dont expect to like them all. and lets be honest there is also some VERY crap traditional music out there.. dance music is no exeption.
On 2002-07-06 11:30, Robert wrote:
Thanks for your list Mr. Topaz, but I think you failed to answer most of my questions:

The whole point about what I'm saying is, why do the things that matter most in other types of music, fail to have any relevance
in 'disco' music? Melody? 'Don't need it'!, Harmony? 'What for'!, Dynamics? 'Who'll notice'!.

So what if one great song uses only one chord, do you have to do them all like that, sounds like laziness. And as for the 4/4 is easier to dance to bit, what about the waltz and stuff like that?, sounds like fashion to me.

I did an experiment the other day, I taped three different types of radio station and the commercial/rave ones were all virtually
one dynamic, no peaks, no troughs just a straight line. The classical/arts one had all sorts of dynamic curves. So here's a lesson, if you do put dynamics in your music, compress them so that they all are at the same level!

My energy bit is quite simple, just because something's loud or has fast moving lines doesn't mean it has 'energy'. As far as
I'm concerned 'energy' means compositional/performance detail.

And so on.

I'm not concerned whether you think I should like this type of music or whether you like it, I'm primarily concerned about its
aesthetics, the reasons behind its construction.

In fact, I think I've found an answer! Its my new musical invention - Hypnotech, (or Hypnotek if you like). You will
shortly be seeing the first fruits of my musical endeavours.

So watch this space for 'Hypnotech - Random Melodics, Cell Harmonics to a world beat.

(It took me longer to think up the title than it did to write the music).

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply

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

Post by paulrmartin »

"Hypnotech"?
Hmmm....check out AirSculpture, perhaps

Can't wait to hear what you come up with Robert.

Topaz, as far as Holdsworth is concerned, his music can be perceived as fast for fast playing and fast harmonic changes(not even included in the original theme) or very slow sonically. All depends or your perception of music.

I believe Techno-oriented people are sonically motivated.

Robert, after listening to a lot of techno music I believe the dynamics lie in the mix, not in the peaks and troughs that the graphic analyser shows you. There are LOTS of elements that are hidden underneath the first layers of a mix that seem to make or break a techno tune.

After all this discussion, it comes down to "I like it, I don't like it" but techno dance music is definitely a necessity for dancing fools today. :smile:

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-07-25 12:40 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-07-25 12:40 ]</font>
ontik
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Me Mum's Moot? Where u from? (Australia)

Post by ontik »

Firstly I'll say I am an avid electronica follower and have been for 15 years and have been learnt to craft my own for nearly 4. And I have not bought an album that falls outside of the electronica genre for over a decade.

Interstingly, I am currently working with a label to release some work. Yet I still couldn't tell you which side of the c key is b. Left or right.

Recently I have had the opportunity to work (as a technician) with several classically trained musicians who perform in the upper echilons here in Australia. Without fail i stood in awe of all of them and ponered what might become of myself if trained. (I do have the ear for it but no theory whatsoever).

I still have no aspiration to create anything other than electronica but I bow down to true musicians as I truely believe that their skill is far more remarkable that the technical aspect to production/writing of electronica. However they all seemed to find themselves dreaming of what they could do give the capabilities of my equipment.

What I'm saying I guess is: respect where respect is due.

The most significant evolution that occured with the inception of electronics as a media was that nearly all of the rules of music could be, and were broken. The rules of dance music have evolved (some tightened and some eroded) with the technology.

Dance music doesn't care for a tango groove or many other rules that make traditionalists turn in there grave.

I remember a time when I was quite singleminded about dance music/electronica. People would say to me "Its not music" and my response would be "No shit! Thats why I listen to it. I hate music." I've grown a little since and now I take in everything from Jazz sounds right through to the coursest of techno.

The other significant point I haven't seen in this thread is the drug factor. Regardless of what anyone says, techno would never have taken off at the speed it has without the assistance of its associated drug culture. It does sound better on drugs, lets not kid ourselves though, everything sounds better on acid :lol: But truely synthetic sounds stand out against traditional music like driving an F1 car compared to driving any street sedan. They aren't even the same.

And on that point, as I say in my signature "If I have to explain, you won't understand."

I don't ever wish to take away your right to dislike or question the technical fortitude of dance music. Thats fine by me if no-one else.

All music/sound is is mechinism for transmitting an imagination.

And personally I feel that traditional theory is too convoluted for the dance genre and overcomplicates and detracts from a sound that is fundamentally built on the complexities of its timbres. And that goes for its percussive elements as well.
ontiK.

"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
User avatar
paulrmartin
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by paulrmartin »

On 2002-08-12 02:29, ontik wrote:



What I'm saying I guess is: respect where respect is due.



And personally I feel that traditional theory is too convoluted for the dance genre and overcomplicates and detracts from a sound that is fundamentally built on the complexities of its timbres. And that goes for its percussive elements as well.


Well said, Ontik. As a classically trained musician, I completely agree with you.
Are we listening?..
hubird

Post by hubird »

mmm, wasn't it Mondriaan who said, melody is bourgois, it's fake and restricting devellopment?
He than jumped into boogy woogy, or was it ragtime.

Didn't know that the famous painting 'Are you afraid of red yellow and blue' (from?) was inferior art because it's just about timbre of colour.

As everybody might know I was offline for a couple of months, so I'm reading this thread now in one time.
So Robert, I must say that I've learnt mutch more about my own love for electronic dance music from all the fantastic and generous replies, than from one of your 10 questions and following thoughts.

Why don't you just hate dance music?
Not my problem.

There's just good music and bad music.

Let there be Music!
Robert
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London

Post by Robert »

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: robert on 2002-08-14 04:33 ]</font>
User avatar
kensuguro
Posts: 4434
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
Contact:

Post by kensuguro »

Hmm... I'm sort of behind myself about all this... What I can add is this:

The differenciation of "disco" and "classic" is kind of hard. Disco stuff can be made with "classic" influences, or even with pure classic. The question sounds as if we are trying to find out what exactly is the boundary between classic and "disco".

Now, we should agree that a GOOD tune in "classic" and a GOOD tune in "disco" can't be compared on the same level. We play with different objectives, different rules. The games is essentially of a different quality.

So anyway, back to the question of what the boundary is between "classic" and "disco". I'd say the genral public's view of classic would be up to Mozart, Bethoven, pure harmony era, where harmony was built from 3 or 4 notes. Anything beyond that I'd consider either "modern", or in some ways, related to "disco", which is a combination of exceptions that weren't persued in "classic". De Bussy is one of them. Parralel movements? Chords with multiple functions? I'd say that's more "disco" than classic.

So now, there's this disco music. It breaks rules. It ignores tradition. It seems to break the rules of ergonomics and tends to rely on machines. Is this good?

The questions boils down to the creative mind that uses it. Would Bethoven have made good electronic music? Debussy? Stravinsky?

I'll probably answer yes. These people worked with all the instruments that they had access to. They used all the musical ideas that existed at their time. These people were efficient. They knew what they were working with. This is creativity. It has nothing to do with theory. These guys MADE theory. But they didn't do it just out of spontaneous inspirartions. It was academic. Their creative choices were educated and thouroughly thought through. That's creativity.

So the difference between "classic" and "disco"? It seems to me it pretty much depends on who we're talking about. The entire race is measured upon what the rules are, and how close the author got to the boudaries. How much they streteched the rules. That is the ultimate race of creativity. No more, no less.

It doesn't matter what the medium is, or what the style is. We have PCs, VA synths, and electro/pop/etc. music to work with. Classic people had woodwinds/violins/etc and pure harmonic structures to work with. There's always relationship between the material and bounding rules. The rules have always been the same. The game is the same for "disco" and "classic".

Of course, the players are different. We have much more players compared to those days when learning less than 1000 tunes meant that you knew the entire musical hitory. Now we have much more. From talented+educated, to just talented with an attitude or all the way to educated and not talented. But the rules are still the same. 12 notes. No more, no less.

But obviously, we've broken that boundary also... not meaning microtonal scales, but about the whole "timbre" concept. Especially in the area of percussion. Timbre is everything. A kick drum may be even more valuable that what melody sounds like during the "hook". Times have changed. People look fore different thing in music. It's not JUST about the 12 notes anymore. So perhaps, we're working with just a little more than the "classic" people. Which makes the sport much more fun and interesting.

So I've waded through the yes and the no views... there's always different ways of viewing things. And to express the different view points, is our job. The artist's job. I mean, it's obvious one answer isn't going to do. It won't work in all situations... and it's just not creative! Which places a very important significance in divergences like this. There's never a loss in thinking.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2002-08-14 12:31 ]</font>
Robert
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London

Post by Robert »

What a terrific reply! (Better than my pompous rubbish).

Robert
Guillermo
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Guillermo »

Because my english isn't good, I prefer to answer with a musical example. I've choosed this:
-Release: M-5
-Artist: Maurizio (Moritz Von Oswald)
-Label: M (sublabel of Basic Channel)

And you can to answer the questions:
1. Where's the melody?
- Nowhere
2. Why only one chord, or maybe two, for the whole song?
- Why not zero chords?
3. Why one time signature and why always 4/4?
- While you try to find the answer I'm going to dance.
4. Why only one tempo?
- If you have a good reason for change it then do it.
5. Why only one dynamic?
- So you can hear the subtleties
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?
- Because in electronic music the timbre of the sounds is essential to express emotions.
8. Why do all the sounds feel like they were found instead of looked for?
- They always are looking for, sometimes they find it.
9. Does anyone play anything for more than one bar before quantising it and then looping it?
- You can play nothing also.
10. Does anyone ever put expression in their music?
- The artist that I indicate above for example.
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?
- No.
User avatar
paulrmartin
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by paulrmartin »

Guillermo, that is one extreme example!(Edit: the most minimalist stuff I've heard in the genre so far)

I sat for 7:30 in front of my computer listening to subtle timbre changes in that bass line and the elements of the beats coming in and going out.

Sounds good but now I'm going to listen to Liszt's Sonata in B minor.

It does come down to taste:
If you like it, great but if you don't, just move on... :smile:

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-08-16 09:58 ]</font>
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

hey! another place to use this current cliche'-

it's all good....
User avatar
Nestor
Posts: 6686
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!

Post by Nestor »

About the aesthetics of any kind of music:

This is a introduction on what I’ve understood through lots of reflection, thinking, studying and most of all experimenting on music composing, playing and listening.

Music is a universal language. Being music a language, we can say anything through it. Being music a language without words, we can speak in a deeper way than using them. Music being so deep, can express with precision the state of mind you are in at a given moment, can really turn your inside world, out.

Children, for instance, can’t really understand adult words even if they can repeat them in the same way, but most likely without the sense adults give to these pronounced words.

Many children repeat what adults say because they want to be like them, it’s supposed to be a good thing to be an adult, to grow up and developing. Others will repeat what adults say because they hear them speaking constantly, others because they are fascinated with their power and independence, or with the fascinating world of television, or with a hero, etc. In the music world it happens something comparable.

There are composers that are impressed by some sort of fashion moment and so they go into it for a few years, others will stick to what they first liked, some others will explore completely unknown realms of sounds…

The fact of going into this or that kind of music is related with your state of mind and with your maturity as a person. It’s a psychological matter!

Children’s music is nice for children, but I can’t really imagine a 3 years old child listening to Stravinsky or Bartok for instance, that would rather scare them. I don’t mean it’s impossible, why not, but it will not be a common thing, will it?

If you observe your life, you’ll find you have grown constantly and progressively on your musical tastes. You first liked one kind of music, a few years ago you liked something else, and then you liked again something that you used to listen at, but now it’s different, it’s like playing children games because it remains you your young age, or because you are sharing with some children yourself.

We as composers go always through periods of searching falling into extremely complex composing at times, then we return to the beginning to re-understand everything, it’s like the same note if you like, but in a different octave. The returning to the beginning, it’s not really to go back, it’s still going forward because you understand everything in a different way you used to and so, you develop your deepness and understanding of life and in consequence, of composing.

You can’t complain against somebody who likes something you don’t! In fact, it’s a passage or a period of his life. There are people who tend to develop themselves doing all sort of efforts to achieve so, there are people who do not care about developing themselves individuals and they are always the shadow of what they were at 15 or 20 years old, and are struggling against life not to grow, cos it’s hard, they want to be children forever... Unfortunately they never nurture their inner nature in a conscious way, they just let themselves go through life. I say “unfortunately” because I think maturity it’s a good thing. As with ideas, coherence and objectivity, music can be confusing, becoming a search for something, which is not. The aesthetics of music is not far from the ethics of music, in fact, one thing can’t be without the other whatever aesthetics and ethics means to you.

Is there a real parameter or objective line to follow? Concerning myself, positively yes, absolutely yes! The line to follow is Consciousness. This is a meaningless word if I don’t explain it a bit: Consciousness is the Essence of every person, of every man. I think our nowadays world is ill, I think we are in trouble; so many problems, violence, extortions, wars, genocides, abuses of all kind, and so forth… I understand we are in crisis because we are far from ourselves, from our very Essence, so from our Consciousness. For some of you, this statement may sound sort of a mystical understanding of things, well… I will have to disagree with, I just have been observing the world with much interest and seriousness and this is not mystics, it’s what I’s happening.

To me, this is the reason why our music is sometimes conflictive, violent and even destructive.

So I think music is just a reflection of what we are, sort of a mirror that expresses your state of mind, your psychological “I” of the moment.

I have been interested in the theories of Pythagoras and other related people to the aesthetics of music and the relation of this, to the ethics of the Consciousness. I’ve discovered that the knowledge of Pythagoras has unfortunately been discovered only partially; most of his teachings have been lost or adulterated by religious fanaticism. It is truly regrettably but we no longer have access to these teachings.

Nonetheless, luckily, he’s not the only one to have taught about these ultra interesting matters for us, composers, we can still find some of these teachings among the Whirling Dervishes in the deepest esotericism of the Islamic world, which, by the way, has nothing to do with today fanaticism and free violence.

There exist deeper or more mature people than others and this is an undeniable fact. There are people with a very insecure and even childish way of thinking and there are children incredible deep. Some people, even reaching their 60 years of age, are still children who think as if they were 9 years old. On the other hand we have children of 9 who think as if they were 100. The different levels of maturity among people is something nobody can disagree with, it’s a reality, and music cannot be unrelated to this states of mind. People compose superficial or deeper music all in regard to their moment, to their state of mind. Let’s say it’s a process of growing up as a person.

To be like this or like that, it’s not a moral matter, at least, not in what I’m saying, because I’m not saying that to be mature is “good” and to be immature is “bad”, both are states of the Being of a person, here there’s not place for morals in my statement.

You cannot judge a tree cos is still small… it’s growing and so, needs time, water, some minerals from the earth, etc. With absolute certainly, a big tree has once been a little tree.

So, we all have to go through life experiencing many different situations while we develop ourselves. Some people may react this or that way; our reactions facing up the events of life makes us more understandable people or just stubborn people, for instance, and this is the great difference which shows clearly in our composing, no doubt.

Said that, I understand people have different likes depending on their maturity, deepness and state of mind. In fact, the Spears is not the preferred kind of singer for a, let’s say, philosopher, for a deep thinker. And Wagner is not the preferred kind of music for a closed minded person not interested in deep thinking, but in football. I now, I seem to be building up sort of a moral concept and you may be bothered by that. I agree with you if so… but I’m not writing a list of decrepit concepts and death appreciations of people, absolutely not! These are OBSERVABLE FACTS that I’ve seen in many places of the world through many years. They ARE in the real world. It is obvious that there are many exceptions in every single realm of life, but the rule is the rule.

Answering to some of Robert’s questions, from the point of view of this Ancient Knowledge:

1. Where's the melody?
According to these teachings, melody implies the sense of things, being equivalent to the thinking in a human body; a body without thinking is like a zombie person. In other words, a piece of music without melody would be like a non-written book. You go liking the book itself, it’s paper, its form but there is nothing written into its pages.

2. Why only one chord, or maybe two, for the whole song?
Harmony is within yourself the way you get in touch, the way you open yourself to new influences and understandings in life. If harmony is closed, you are in a closed state of mind, which I understand is not necessarily negative as long as you don’t glue there forever.

3. Why one time signature and why always 4/4?
Rhythm is an organic state related to the rhythms of nature. The tempos used by us are in concomitance with the rhythms of nature at an inner organic level. (I think that for dancing anyway, you need a stable rhythm) Faster and slower rhythms exist, but we don’t use them because they do not exist at an organic level within ourselves.

Extremely deep topic this one Robert, I’ll never be satisfied with what I said, there are too many related things to go through and not enough time to do it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2002-09-03 19:25 ]</font>
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

snobs and haters!what is this creature that makes all this garbage,labels it culture and then argues about it's significance and yet never gives a crap about it's fellow creatures real lives?(the ones who are the reason for all this culture)what is the purpose of music?why does it matter?why must every moment of our live revolve around it?(shopping malls elevators and television are almost impossible without it!)

how can any form not have a valid aesthetic?
it is the OBVIOUS aesthetic which defines one form from another.

it's electronica which provides the contrast necessary to show "classical music" as something different.at one time there was no such "classical music".it was just some pop.how could "classically trained",which sez nothing specific(like just WHO a teacher or school was,which is much more important imho)carry such weight except that the conceit is that current composers aren't worth shit.(this was said of mozart)my father in law payed viola in the la philharmonic untill 2 years ago.he has much talent to read,but like many good readers,his comprehension is low.he went to guilliard.was his "education" good?(well his training was,he got a good job)

to all, respect for your good and hard work!
you don't have to hate to validate!

(please! may no one think i am speaking specifically to them.it's just an arguement!)

rome wants you to think life is about a tale of hero's battle(your life)but that's not what's really going on. (the definition of romance)

nice long thread tho......

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2002-09-03 21:43 ]</font>
User avatar
at0m
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bubble Metropolis
Contact:

Post by at0m »

It's the audience that determines weither something is art or not. If no-one ever liked watching, thinking or discussing Da Vinci, he would not have been an artist.
User avatar
wayne
Posts: 2375
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Australia

Post by wayne »

People's difference in musical taste still astounds and perplexes me. There is room for everything, and anything in life can affect it.
coc999
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Idonotknowanymore
Contact:

Post by coc999 »

Nestor,i am now curious about the phytagore theories. even if i know nothing about composition,i think this guy was really "cool?":

"At the start of the ideas of Pythagore, Plato had created a true philosophical system centered on the harmony. He rested on a balance of simple proportions borrowed from the music. As the Harmony in the macrocosm and microcosm rests on the laws of the number, the music was integrated into mathematics. "

http://www.notam02.no/~ristoh/pythagore/manray.mpeg (8.5mo file)
http://www.notam02.no/~ristoh/pythagore/p10.gif
http://www.notam02.no/~ristoh/pythagore/p07.gif

and i'm not a mystic :)or maybe yes?
thanks.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

no matter what the romans say,the greeks never invented anything..
everything is older than greek civilization.(well duuuuh!)
User avatar
Nestor
Posts: 6686
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!

Post by Nestor »

This is true Garyb, the real knowledge Greeks have given to us was completely Egyptian... Egypt is the REAL mother of our civilization today.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

an the sphynx was ancient when the makers of the pyramids found it buried in the sand....
Post Reply