Electronic Music- Does it suck?

[Faeflora]

First I must say that I don't mean the magazine Electronic Music, I mean the genre. After hip-hop the most dissed genre in the sound engineering community seems to be music of the Electronic genre. This genre typically includes Techno, Industrial and their offspring. Why does electronic music get little respect? Do you think that it deserves more respect? Opinions?

[paulferpacific.net.sg]

It doesn't suck, no. But it's not as nutritious as live music captured while it's played. Live music walks a tightrope and smiles at the listeners at the same time - that's what we need to do ourselves, hence the resonance. Assembled music is just as creative, but doesn't take all the risks that life in the moment involves, if you get what I mean. It doesn't take all the risks that life in the moment requires, some would say.

[Guest]

What about live electronic music? There are plenty of people doing live e-music that's very much about taking risks and living in the moment.

 

And I don't agree that studio-based music is necessarily less nutritious, any more than painting, sculpture, and other non-performance-based art forms are.

 

There's plenty of e-music that's the equivalent of fast food or paint-by-numbers, but I think we have to judge any genre based on its best examples, not its worst.

[Jonathan Hughes]

I think your real question is "why does electronic music get little respect?", not "does electronic music suck?" ( I'm guessing that you would answer "no" to that question).

 

A better question might be "why doesn't electronic music get more respect in America"? It seems to do just fine in Europe, but has never really made it into the mainstream in America (which I think is good).

 

As far as why it isn't respected, I think it's mainly because people don't understand what is involved in creating it. Because there are so much equipment out there that lets someone create music from preset grooves (if they choose), a lot of people seem to think that all you need is a few grooveboxes and you can make dance music. It's just not that easy. That's like saying that if I bought a pedal steel guitar I could make country music. Tools are not talent.

 

I think some of the subgenres are more respected than others. Even someone who doesn't like Drum-n-Bass has to appreciate the amount of work that goes into creating those complex rhythms. The stuff that's more intended strictly for clubs seems to get less respect, probably due the simpler, more repeteitive nature of a lot of it.

 

It all takes talent, though. It may not be an obvious talent, but it's talent nonetheless.

 

It's sort of odd that in some activities (take iceskating, for example) a person is deemed "talented" if they make something look easy. But people who create electronic music, or DJ, which evidently looks easy to a lot of people, are usually not considered to be "talented."

 

As far as live electronic music not taking risks, I guess it depends on who you're seeing. If they're just pressing "Play" on their sequencer, then yeah, I guess there's not going to be much risk. But just because it's "electronic music" doesn't mean that there will be no risk-taking.

 

Jonathan

[Anderton]

>>What about live electronic music? There are plenty of people doing live e-music that's very much about taking risks and living in the moment.<<

 

Yes, that's really a lot of fun. I'm heading off to Zurich next week to do some live groove gigging, and I can hardly wait. There's a much more receptive climate for this type of music over in Europe.

 

There was a thread in here called "Are DJ Musicians?" You'd be amazed at the vitriol exhibited by some musicians. The DJs, by and large, were pretty humble about their talents and far more gracious in their replies. Hmmm...

 

I hear a lot of musicians listen to loop-based music and say, "I can do that." Bull!! It's very hard to get something that walks the fine line between repetition and monotony, that can do tension and release to a T. The analogy I use is collage; you're taking bits and pieces to create something original. Creating a great collage is as difficult as creating anything great.

 

np: Lords of Acid, "Voodoo U"

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I hear a lot of musicians listen to loop-based music and say, "I can do that." Bull!! It's very hard to get something that walks the fine line between repetition and monotony, that can do tension and release to a T. The analogy I use is collage; you're taking bits and pieces to create something original. Creating a great collage is as difficult as creating anything great.

 

I still remember a letter from a Keyboard reader, 20 years or so ago, who said, "My five-year-old could play synthesizer as well as Keith Emerson," or words to that effect. I had a terrible urge to phone the guy and bet him $10,000 that his 5-year-old couldn't even figure out how to get a sound out of my Serge Modular without coaching from daddy, no matter how long he tried. So yes, skill is required.

 

Having said that, I think one reason synth/sampler music gets so little respect in some quarters has to do not with the tools but with the oft-ignored _content_ factor. The medium is the message, as Marshall MacLuhan said. If the medium is far removed from the warm and intuitive process of making music on an acoustic instrument, should we be surprised that the music is felt by listeners to be less warm, less intuitive?

 

OTOH, who cares? Kiss got no respect for many years, but they sold a lot of albums and filled a lot of concert halls. If you're playing synths and samplers and want to do the same, you have two choices: play the stuff audiences have already demonstrated that they like, or figure out a way to appeal to them while doing your own thing. Ain't easy, either way.

 

--Jim Aikin

[Anderton]

>>Having said that, I think one reason synth/sampler music gets so little respect in some quarters has to do not with the tools but with the oft-ignored _content_ factor. <<

 

I have a slightly different take on "the content factor." A couple years ago you wrote a piece about how music needed to tell a story. A lot of the dance music doesn't have much of a story to tell, other than programming your body to go through the aforementioned tension and release. Once an artist puts together danceable rhythms with an engaging story, I think the medium might get a lot more respect.

 

As a friend of mine said, "That music is for dancing, not listening" (not said with contempt, by the way!). Once you have your cake and eat it too, the rules will change.

[paulferpacific.net.sg]

Walters -

 

"What about live electronic music? There are plenty of people doing live e-music that's very much about taking risks and living in the moment."

 

You're right.

 

"And I don't agree that studio-based music is necessarily less nutritious, any more than painting, sculpture, and other performance-based art forms are."

 

I don't think 'assembled' music is poor nutrition, I just think 'whole' music is higher grade stuff, like whole foods are higher grade nutrition than processed foods. It's like the difference between a play and a movie. A play is live, it's risky. With a movie, somebody screws up and the director yells 'cut' and you do it over. I don't disagree with overdubbing and pitch correction and punching in over mistakes - but it lacks something that a 'whole' performance has. I still want to go to movies, listen to Portishead and eat Pringles from time to time.

 

"There's plenty of e-music that's the equivalent of fast food or paint-by-numbers, but I think we have to judge any genre based on its best examples, not its worst."

 

You're right again, yeah.

 

But this is kind of off topic, and other people said way more useful stuff on this topic than I did.

[Lee Flier]

I don't think people who make electronic music are talentless, and I don't think it's necessarily easy to make. However, I don't like it. I don't even see how people dance to it. Dance music, to me, is a groove, and a groove BREATHES. If there aren't subtle changes in dynamics, in tonality, in tempo throughout the music - or if all the instruments are too perfectly in sync with each other - that makes my body get tense and jittery, not relaxed and grooving like real dance music.

 

If I wanna dance, I'll take something like Grandmaster Flash, or just about any good reggae or ska band, or the Wild Tchoupitoulas, or any kind of Latin or Carribean music, or even the Rolling Stones for that matter. Electronic stuff just makes me wanna make a quick exit from the dance club.

 

--Lee

[Uh Clem]

Well there is certainly a lot of evidence to support the notion that we don't all like the same kinds of music. I cannot remember the rest of my point...

[Guest]

Take some E and listen to Paul Oakenfold spinning "gamemaster" and you will understand why people like electronic music! But seriously folks, I absolutely love electronic music as well as rock,classical,reggae,hip hop, etc. I guess I just have varied tastes. I think it is beacause I grew up on Pink Floyd(with syd barrett that it) and lots of other psychadelic stuff, so trance and drum n bass as well as ambient dub tend to lend themselves to my tastes. I really enjoy the trance like state some electronic music can put you in- it is very primal. My main band is along the lines of the Deftones or Soulfly, but I do a little trance stuff on the side...for whatever it's worth.....keep you minds open, you just might enjoy some forms of techno that you never thought you would.

[alphajerk]

i dont really want to get in too deep with this. all genres can suck given the right artist. all genres have something cool [even country has hank]

 

to people who claim you are cheating by doing whatever. who said you could make the rules? i play by my own. i really dont care how somebody did something [aside from wanting to know] as long as how it turned out is good.

 

so many people have such different opinions on whats good. thats a good thing. NOBODY HAS CREATED THE ULTIMATE WINNER OF ALL THAT IS UNIVERSAL YET! and if they did, would you want to only hear that all the time?

 

 

as far is emusic done live. dj's are always somewhere where i cant see them, im not a dancer, im a wallflower. i try to find the booth and watch. the guys on stage playing who the hell knows what, i really dont know if your are playing to the cd or playing for real, i guess as long as it doesnt skip or crash. my favorite is seeing a full on band. add in other elements and its all the better. anybody hear of a band out of chicago called SQUISHY. they are the shit of both worlds, check em out. funkadelic meets mad professor on nitrous.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by seth@tampabay.rr.com:

Take some E and listen to Paul Oakenfold spinning "gamemaster" and you will understand why people like electronic music! But seriously folks, I absolutely love electronic music as well as rock,classical,reggae,hip hop, etc. I guess I just have varied tastes. I think it is beacause I grew up on Pink Floyd(with syd barrett that it) and lots of other psychadelic stuff, so trance and drum n bass as well as ambient dub tend to lend themselves to my tastes.

 

I like a lot of psychedelic stuff too including Barrett era Floyd, but electronic music still gives me the willies. To me, the thing that bothers me about it goes beyond taste. It has to do the with idea of music being performed by a machine instead of human beings. That is a bit creepy to me, kinda like people who would prefer to have sex with a machine over a person.

 

When I hear this stuff my body instantly tells me something is "wrong", even if I might like the melody or think some of the sounds are creative. And it worries me that a lot of people don't seem to notice this. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

I really enjoy the trance like state some electronic music can put you in- it is very primal.

 

I love trance music too but again, if it's made by real people. Lots of other cultures play trance music with drums, percussion, flutes, sitars, bagpipes, etc. Part of the whole thing that makes trance music great is the mental state and the endurance of the performer, the ability to play for hours and hours repeating the same passages but with ever so subtle movements of tempo, dynamics and time. These expressions are passed on to the listener. A lot of people don't seem to hear or feel this and instead think that a machine is an acceptable substitute. Again, that is really creepy to me.

 

Of course I would never try to make the "rules" or impose my views on everyone. It's just something to think about.

 

--Lee

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-26-2000).]

[Faeflora]

Originally posted by walters@feastofweeds.com:

What about live electronic music? There are plenty of people doing live e-music that's very much about taking risks and living in the moment.

 

And I don't agree that studio-based music is necessarily less nutritious, any more than painting, sculpture, and other non-performance-based art forms are.

 

There's plenty of e-music that's the equivalent of fast food or paint-by-numbers, but I think we have to judge any genre based on its best examples, not its worst.

 

Every electronic music show I've been to has sucked. Either the composers press play on a DAT or a CD and sing along like a type of high-quality kareoke or they hide behind walls of keyboards and fx or whatever with their heads poking over their stacks of shit wondering if anyone in the audience can see them pressing "play" on their sequencers. Damn, it's so awesome to watch a person expressionlessly stand there and turn some tiny knobs. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif Or, you've got a singer, a guitarist, a keyboardist, and the centerpiece; the DAT machine of course, with the keyboardist rocking out some awesome performance with a 1 fingered pre-programmed arpeggio played using the arpeggiator of course...

 

Ok, yes, I am an electronic musician and I think that almost all live shows where the music is 90% electronic based SUCK. I'm tired of seeing lameos jump around onstage while their cassete is turning or watching the "wizards" cowering behind their massive hoarded gear. Most of these shows don't even incorporate any type of performance art which might make things more interesting. They just stand there rocking out to the tape. ARGHGHGH http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif Well, some groups who have done shows I respect are Skinny Puppy and NIN and Aphex Twin since there's a lot to watch and sometimes, occasionally, people actually play their instruments instead of skillfully turning on their arpeggiators (scratch that for Aphex Twin). {by the way a great improvisational album to check out is Music For Cats by cEvin Key on the Subconscious label, it's fun} ARRR that's another pissed off thing for me.. I hate arpeggiators. It's so easy to make 'cool' sounding lines with them that people forget to write the music! I'm tired of listening to songs with a kick drum, snare, and arpeggiators! ARRHRHRH http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif Maybe I'm hearing too much industrial music.

 

I don't want to sound like I want to make out with myself, but whenever I've done live performances (as an electronic musician) I've tried to make sure that things were interesting to watch. I tried giving a good visual scene and asthetic performance. I'd like to see more of that instead of the pitifull shows I've seen. It might be my preference but still; arrrrrrrar.

 

Ok, now that i've pissed out about live electronic music I guess that I'll write my opinions about the composed pre-recorded and distributed stuff. Yah, that's a good analogy about sculpture vs. a video tape of a performance art piece like Cirque' de' Soliel or however it's spelled... I think that there are possibilities for ambiance that aren't exploited with electronic music. For instance, what about dumping a speaker in a hall playing your synth lead and micing it? That would add a little more life to a piece than just a plugin or outboard 'verb. Then there's lots of opportunity for live un-quantized improv work in electronic music that is rarely done, and when it is done it's in cliched circumstances such as a "live" filtersweep. I know that there is a lot of electronic music out there.. a WHOLE LOT, maybe there's as many electronic musicians in the US as there are garage rockers in the US. Definetly as many in some other countries like germany or UK. Anyways I know that there are some people doing creative work, but not too many. Well, that's how it is in all genres though isn't it? Damn, I am rambling. Tough! Haha! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Anyways, "canned" or MIDI composed music is just different than live recorded music in my opinion. I've heard it stated that live recorded music is more emotional, electronic is more intellectual. I agree with this in some circumstances but not all! I cry and laugh when I hear electronic music, some of it is spectacularly beautiful. It also is a young genre. Modern instruments are evolved creatures from post A.D. Synthesizers and samplers came about in '69 (I think with Moog?)! I think that electronic music has far greater potential for masterpiece work for several reasons:

 

-With 32+ tracks available you can tweak and add and revise your compositions to perfection. Sequencing is sooo powerful, as others have said, "what if Bach had a sequencer?"

 

-You can create -ANY- audible sound with a synthesizer and a sampler. Additive synthesis is super powerful and of course, if you sample you have any sound in the world to use electronically.

 

Electronic music is reallly prevelant. I don't listen to pop radio so when I heard Ricky Martin I was like, friggy fook it's techno industrial hiphop electronica sortof! It's in car commercials (puke), TV shows, Flash on the net, etc blah blah blah blah blah.. I hope that more creative artists achieve moderate reknown so they can introduce new techniques and expand the electronic genre.

 

I am an electronic musician and I love it! I love sound and it's wonderful variances and colors and I love finding new sounds with my sythesizers. It's so much fun to "find" samples and mutate them and grow them too! I also love composing on the sequencer, it's so fast and it is so easy. If I miss timing, I can fix it through MIDI.

 

Some electronic music does suck, but it is the youngest genre with the greatest possibities for fantastic music! The end.

[Faeflora]

sorry, double post.

 

[This message has been edited by Faeflora (edited 10-26-2000).]

[Faeflora]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I love trance music too but again, if it's made by real people. Lots of other cultures play trance music with drums, percussion, flutes, sitars, bagpipes, etc. Part of the whole thing that makes trance music great is the mental state and the endurance of the performer, the ability to play for hours and hours repeating the same passages but with ever so subtle movements of tempo, dynamics and time. These expressions are passed on to the listener. A lot of people don't seem to hear or feel this and instead think that a machine is an acceptable substitute. Again, that is really creepy to me.

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-26-2000).]

 

Would you mind reccomending any ethnic trance music? I am interested in hearing it.

 

I agree that there is a "wrong" feeing in electronic music. I noticed that when I first started going to dance clubs. I think that has to do with what MIDI and quantization do to the feel. As you all know, MIDI timing is not consistent but it's consistent enough to sound like a robot or a machine. And if you record your music into a MIDI sequencer and then quantize it, damn, it sure has the qualities of a machine or a robot. I've read some articles (some by Craig I think) about adding 'human' variation to MIDI and quantized pieces. I think doing those things can effectively remove lifeless qualities in rythmic patterns and make things seem more alive. I don't think that the "machine" should be thought of as a substitute, but just as another type of music. If someone did a 4/4 sitar piece with bagpipes and 808 kick with gated bass I'm sure people would be like, "supercool"!

 

F

[F7sound -]

Sucking is in the "ear" of the beholder. I think any genre is capable of sucking and/or being great. Seems like in the United States people are generally less accepting of music that is outside the realm of what we hear on radio or MTV (remember when they played videos?) People tend to put the label "suck" on something that they don't understand. As far as I'm concerned, electronic music is here to stay - and continue to evolve. Keep on rockin' (or synthesizin')!

 

 

Michael Oster

F7 Sound and Vision http://www.f7sound.com

[Guest]

I think there's an issue here of electronic music being overly identified with dance music. I could go to an e-music show every week here in SF and never hear anything dancey or presequenced (unless I wanted to). It is true that e-music shows sometimes lack visual interest, but not always. For starters, a lot of bands have a mixture of electronic and acoustic instruments (my old band had a full-time percussionist who played a fascinating array of junk, and the rest of us would throw in sax or bass or toy guitar from time to time). Also, some people add video or film. In any case, I don't really mind if the band looks like they're doing their math homework, as long as the music is happening. I just close my eyes.

[Guest]

I don't see what the big deal is, who cares if music is "played" by someone or arranged- how it comes out is the important thing. Besides, that is why live bands sound so different than albums. There is so much done in the studio that makes things sound different. How is this differant than electronic music? I agree to a point about live techno shows. I wouldn't pay all that much to see a guy just spins records, however if the DJ is really good(Sasha,Oakenfold,Digweed,Ralph,Seb Fontaine,Nick Warren) then it is worth it. You are going more for the experience anyway. I just think that some of you older guys have no idea what the whole vibe surrounding electronic music is. It really has allot to do with E, if you know nothing of E then you may have trouble understanding why people would like thumping beats. Please don't misunderstand me- Not to say that you have to do drugs to understand it, but it helps. The guys in my band never liked any kind of techno or dance music, but after trying E and listening to some good trance and jungle they said they understood it better. Go download lost tribe "gamemaster" from napster and tell me that isn't great music!

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Faeflora:

Would you mind reccomending any ethnic trance music? I am interested in hearing it.

 

Unfortunately, not much of it has been recorded. It's something that generally is played live, and not by touring artists. You would have to travel to remote villages in Scotland or India or Morocco or Mexico or Japan or wherever to really hear it the way it's supposed to be heard. Some ethnologists have done this and you can find some of their recordings at university libraries, but the quality of the recordings generally isn't great. I hope with the advent of portable standalone DAW's more of this kind of music will get recorded well, and in fact I'd like to undertake some of that myself.

 

One of my favorite groups for example, is Kodo, the Japanese Taiko drumming group. These people are just phenomenal in their endurance and ability to bring about a trance or ecstatic state. There are plenty of great recordings of their performances both live and in studio, but most of the stuff on record is shorter compositions, and their more recent stuff sorta attempts to pander to Westerners by putting more dance type music in there. I don't deny that much of their recorded stuff is great! But it isn't what they would do if they were at home, if that makes sense.

 

Ditto many of the bagpipe groups. If you buy recorded bagpipe music by the really talented groups, they're usually short marches and reels. But if you actually go see them in their hometown they may play all night and that's what you want to hear!

 

Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones visited a remote village in Morocco, and recorded the drum and flute music which is played there 24 hours a day. It's a great glimpse, but the recorded quality (like most of these endeavors) isn't great. It is also out of print, although you may still be able to find it (it's called "Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Jojouka").

 

One of your best chances to find real trance music is to look for Sufi records from Turkey, Egypt or Syria. One good one that should still be in print is "Sufi Music of Turkey" compiled by Kudsi Erguner. There is some good recorded Indian trance music as well, I'll look through that and try to come up with some titles for ya.

 

I agree that there is a "wrong" feeing in electronic music. I noticed that when I first started going to dance clubs. I think that has to do with what MIDI and quantization do to the feel.

 

That's part of the problem, yeah. I think it's a little deeper than that though, see below.

I've read some articles (some by Craig I think) about adding 'human' variation to MIDI and quantized pieces. I think doing those things can effectively remove lifeless qualities in rythmic patterns and make things seem more alive.

 

Well that's just it, they make things "seem" more alive. But they AREN'T. It isn't just the FACT that there are variations that makes music come alive, it's WHAT the variations are. You can't sit there and program them, because they happen as a part of your body reacting to the instrument and the other players. That's the thing that bothers me so much - that the physical part of music seems to get completely stripped away and replaced by the notion that you can conceive of every part of a performance with your brain alone. You can't, period.

 

If someone did a 4/4 sitar piece with bagpipes and 808 kick with gated bass I'm sure people would be like, "supercool"!

 

Maybe some people would, but I wouldn't. In fact, I would be much less bothered if someone did the opposite - that is, recorded live drums and bass (with no click track and no samples) and then overdubbed synthesized parts that were triggered off that. This would solve a lot of the inherent problems with electronic music because the foundation of the music - the rhythmic and dynamic flow - would still be defined by people actually playing in real time.

 

--Lee

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-27-2000).]

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by seth@tampabay.rr.com:

I just think that some of you older guys have no idea what the whole vibe surrounding electronic music is. It really has allot to do with E, if you know nothing of E then you may have trouble understanding why people would like thumping beats.

 

Seth, there is nothing new about the idea of taking certain drugs and listening to certain music, usually with big thumping beats, to induce ecstatic states. In fact people have been doing that ever since the dawn of humanity. And I think it's great (even without drugs)!

 

What I have been trying to say in this thread, and you've convinced me of it even more, is that this generation, in trying to reclaim a vital sadly repressed part of our common heritage, has accepted a poor substitute for what is actually possible. The Japanese Taiko drummers and many African trance drummers play drums that are 20 feet long and 7 feet in diameter. They run marathons every day just to stay in shape enough to play. These guys have been known to produce spontaneous hypnotic trances and spontaneous orgasms without drugs even being involved.

 

Wouldn't it be great if young Americans and Europeans could go a step further in their quest for ecstatic communal experience, and invent whole new instruments maybe? Get involved in trance groups who learn to play all night without tiring or stopping?

 

Why, oh why, should you let a machine dictate the movements of your bodies? Isn't that just giving in to exactly the kinds of control and repression you long to break free of? Oh, the irony! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

--Lee

[Faeflora]

Originally posted by walters@feastofweeds.com:

I think there's an issue here of electronic music being overly identified with dance music. I could go to an e-music show every week here in SF and never hear anything dancey or presequenced (unless I wanted to). It is true that e-music shows sometimes lack visual interest, but not always. For starters, a lot of bands have a mixture of electronic and acoustic instruments (my old band had a full-time percussionist who played a fascinating array of junk, and the rest of us would throw in sax or bass or toy guitar from time to time). Also, some people add video or film. In any case, I don't really mind if the band looks like they're doing their math homework, as long as the music is happening. I just close my eyes.

 

I agree that when people think 'electronic music' they first think of house dance music. Hey, rap and hip hop is electronic music, I mean, what's an MPC2000 or a drumulator? Arg, I live on the east coast and it's hard to find decent "shows" with unsequenced live electronic music. Maybe I should check out tiny college concerts or art school shows.

 

I think that it's totally possible to groove with electronic beats. Last summer me and my friend programmed some beats, pushed record on the 2-track and went nuts. We wrote sequences on the spot, bashed on stuff, sampled, resampled, screamed, sang, played off each other, and played progressive themes. I totally dig traditional instrument grooving but electronic improv should be given respect too. Even stupid little Roland MC-505's that IMO are pretty much 'songs in a can, deconstitute and play' are useful for getting music with that feel.

 

Live drumming like Japanese traditional is awesome! But, I also get a kick out of recording tracks which would require 3+ percussionists to duplicate live! I will admit that if 3 people got together and learned how to play that song on real instruments the song would sound unreal! But I don't have the money to pay people to do that right now, maybe I will do that in the future (probably http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif). At least I am able to hear something that would take months of practice to play decently live. I can't find non-popmusic-crapitized Japanese drumming in the store so I'll make it on my $300 drum machine.

 

I think people also disdain pop electronic music for some shared reasons they disdain hip-hop. You can be a really crappy keyboardist but with a sequencer you can record Bach with enough time and effort. If I were a concert harpsichordist who has practiced 4 hours a day for the past 20 years of life and some person with 1 year of harpsichord experience showed me how they could tinker out Bach accurately at 5BPM and then switch tracks and record the other hand I might feel sorta cheated. This is an extreme analogy but I do think that a lot of people feel that electronic music is easy to play and record compared to traditional guitar, bass (yah right, as if bass guitar is that hard???? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif whatever), and drums (again, really now... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif) And since electronic music doesn't require micing with 'pure' signal paths in million dollar acoustic spaces it doesn't appeal to engineers either. That's what I think. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif

[Anderton]

Wow, this thread sure got a quick response...so many things I could say, but I'll limit myself to one comment for now.

 

>> That's part of the problem, yeah. I think it's a little deeper than that though, see below.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've read some articles (some by Craig I think) about adding 'human' variation to MIDI and quantized pieces. I think doing those things can effectively remove lifeless qualities in rythmic patterns and make things seem more alive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well that's just it, they make things "seem" more alive. But they AREN'T. It isn't just the FACT that there are variations that makes music come alive, it's WHAT the variations are. You can't sit there and program them, because they happen as a part of your body reacting to the instrument and the other players. <<

 

But those changes ARE in reaction to the music. For example, on my Forward Motion CD, there was a song called "Paradise" that had a long, sustainted vocal part that ended up going into an orchestral kick drum to re-introduce the song. This was originally done in MIDI, and yes, the kick hit right on the beat.

 

After listening to it, I wanted the sustain to last just a tad longer, so I shifted the kick drum a few milliseconds later to add to the tension before the release kicked in. It made a huge difference. I don't see anything "artificial" to this, any more than it would if a producer said "Nice take, but hold off a little bit on the kick before you come back in, okay?"

 

The other point of this "humanizing" is to enable someone to more accurately reproduce what you hear in your head. I'm not a drummer, but I program drum parts. I'm pretty aware of what goes into a drum part -- my Dad was a drummer, and he taught me a lot -- but I don't have the degree of control to play a part with the nuances I'd like. So I do the best I can, then tweak the part to match what I hear in my head. Again, this is in reaction to the music -- I don't just press a "Variation" button and hope it works.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Anderton (edited 10-26-2000).]

[Anderton]

>>What I have been trying to say in this thread, and you've convinced me of it even more, is that this generation, in trying to reclaim a vital sadly repressed part of our common heritage<<

 

So far so good, with you 100%

 

>>has accepted a poor substitute for what is actually possible. <<

 

A lot of traditional African pop bands have added synths to their music. King Sunny Ade, who has been known to play dance-oriented for hours, has embraced synth, steel guitar, and othe "non-African" instruments. The group D'Cuckoo had a trained Taiko drummer who immediately saw the possibilities inherent in electronic rhythm boxes.

 

There are things that a good electronic music band, or a good DJ for that matter, can do that no other form of music can do. There are things the pan pipers of Joujouka can do that no DJ can do. Also remember that electronic dance music is in its infancy; it doesn't have the heritage that other forms have. Some 20 year old raver is going to end up being the next Miles Davis 20 years from now. Already, I'm seeing more maturity and complexity in dance music.

 

In fact, one reason why dance music is surviving is because it's almost Darwinian in its ability to create new sub-genres and adapt to popular taste. I've seen some electronic music groups that have given me extreme emotional as well as physical rushes (without drugs, in case you're counting). I hope to capture some of these on video next week at Battery Park 2000, and post some of it on MusicPlayer.com. I doubt that even 1% of the power and beauty will come through an ultra-compressed RealAudio pipeline, but it's better than nothing .

[Anderton]

I'd like to thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for the fascinating discussions and viewpoints. This is great. I wish we could all jump through the wires and end up in a room where we could meet each other.

 

Okay, now I gotta make a couple more comments...

 

>>I just think that some of you older guys have no idea what the whole vibe surrounding electronic music is.<<

 

I think this is by and large true, but not necessarily because of narrow-mindedness. The scene is sufficiently underground that you have to seek it out. The material that bubbles up to the surface in kid's cartoons and car commercials isn't that representative of what this music is about. I think, though, that a lot of "older guys" would flip if given the chance to experience quality music first-hand. Once you "get it," it's hard to go back.

 

>> It really has a lot to do with E, if you know nothing of E then you may have trouble understanding why people would like thumping beats. <<

 

I agree with this on one level; E is tied in with the club scene. But I don't think you need E to "get" the music any more than you need to be black to "get" the blues.

 

To me the "vibe" is far more complex than a drug. The thing that always hits me the most is the openness of the scene. I'm significantly older than the typical demographic, but no one seems to care. Part of the vibe is also physicality -- real time control is such a big component of much of this kind of music.

 

The biggest part of the vibe, though, is the hardest for me to explain. The scene is extremely amorphous. There don't seem to be a lot of rules; there's much more of a "whatever it takes" attitude, which I love. I really dig it when a DJ segues Public Enemy into "On the Corner" by Miles Davis, then Enya processed beyond recognition -- and makes it work! The variety and vitality stand in stark contrast to the pre-packaged blockbuster mentality so prevalent in today's films and music where plots or chord progressions have to follow "rules."

 

I've said it before, but what's happening now is the most exciting time I've seen in music since the mid to late 60s. I've never had more fun playing music than I am now. And best of all, it's just starting. There's much room to grow and evolve, and I certainly hope to be a part of that evolution on some level...

 

Sometimes it's really just plain good to be alive.

[Lee Flier]

Craig wrote:

 

But those changes ARE in reaction to the music. For example, on my Forward Motion CD, there was a song called "Paradise" that had a long, sustained vocal part that ended up going into an orchestral kick drum to re-introduce the song. This was originally done in MIDI, and yes, the kick hit right on the beat.

 

After listening to it, I wanted the sustain to last just a tad longer, so I shifted the kick drum a few milliseconds later to add to the tension before the release kicked in. It made a huge difference. I don't see anything "artificial" to this, any more than it would if a producer said "Nice take, but hold off a little bit on the kick before you come back in, okay?"

 

Ah, the exception that proves the rule. That is just ONE NOTE you changed, one beat out of hundreds in the tune. What happens when the beat is steady? Does a drummer play each beat perfectly in time, consistently in volume, and with the same tone on each drum every time? God, I hope not! (although this is precisely the goal of a lot of engineers as I lamented on George's forum) There are thousands of minute variations, changing in response to the music and the other musicians, and it is a physical response, a FELT response, not something you could have thought of from the comfort of the control room or a computer.

 

The fact that this seems to be OK with a lot of people (or even something to be "corrected" for when you do have a live drummer), or that nobody notices it, is what creeps me out.

 

The other point of this "humanizing" is to enable someone to more accurately reproduce what you hear in your head. I'm not a drummer, but I program drum parts.

 

Yes, there is no doubt that being able to program music electronically makes things more convenient. However, I don't consider music a convenience snack food. It is tempting to make your meals by throwing a frozen dinner in the microwave or hitting a fast food joint, and you might even LIKE that kind of food sometimes, but I think we can all agree it ain't gourmet, and that we are losing something when we do this.

 

I'm a guitar player, but I made sure to invest in a great drum kit so that I can put across what I want to put across in the music. I also made it a point to learn some drums. And if there's a part I can't play myself, I call a drummer. In fact I really prefer to call a drummer so there will be some interaction going on and not just me sitting in the studio overdubbing everything. The interplay is important. Sure it takes more time that way, and I risk getting frustrated because maybe I'll have a hard time communicating to the drummer what I'm hearing or he has a different idea or we have trouble getting the sounds we want. But to me, that's part of the process, not something to be eliminated.

 

I'm pretty aware of what goes into a drum part -- my Dad was a drummer, and he taught me a lot -- but I don't have the degree of control to play a part with the nuances I'd like. So I do the best I can, then tweak the part to match what I hear in my head.

 

Again, when you gain something you lose something. If you still think it's a net gain to take this approach, so be it. But I think we all lose a lot both by making music this way and listening to the result. I write software, and I also write stories and articles. Both of these activities I would consider solitary - oftentimes doing either of these with someone else is more of a hassle than a benefit. My only job is to translate into words what's in my head.

 

I do not feel that way about music. Music is and has been throughout our time as humans a communal art. We lose something when we don't share it. This whole trend of composers trying to indulge their "personal vision" bothers me. Even two people playing together is better than one person overdubbing or sequencing all the parts. And I'm not saying I've never done this, but now I try to do whatever it takes to avoid it.

 

I used to not have such a problem with using these technologies for songwriting tools. A songwriter could sequence a demo with the parts as he heard them in his head and then later get "real" musicians to record the song. I didn't see a problem with that for awhile, but then I realized that 1) too often, the demo BECOMES the record, or the basis for the record, and 2) even if the intention was to use the demo as a skeleton and allow the musicians a certain degree of creativity, the result is often that a musician (especially a drummer) ends up not being able to break free of the part that was done on the demo. He feels obligated in some way to play the songwriter's "vision" (and sometimes this is reinforced by the songwriter or producer), but (gasp!) maybe he could have come up with a better part himself.

 

In short, just because each of us as musicians and songwriters can now theoretically produce exactly what is "in our heads", I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Not saying it's NEVER a good idea, but just trying to promote some degree of awareness of what we are losing in the process of what we gain by these tools. A little more on this in response to your second post...

 

--Lee

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-27-2000).]

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton:

A lot of traditional African pop bands have added synths to their music.

 

True, and with varying results. As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with synths per se. What I have a problem with is using a machine as the BASIS of a performance.

 

[For the record, I think a lot of African pop sounds about as watered down as Western pop, although there is a lot that I like also. The fact that somebody comes from a different culture doesn't give them a lock on soul.]

 

King Sunny Ade, who has been known to play dance-oriented for hours, has embraced synth, steel guitar, and othe "non-African" instruments.

 

Again, "traditionalism" or remaining true to African instrumentation is not what I'm advocating. I don't care what instruments anybody wants to use to play any style of music - viva la difference, as long as it's human beings who are playing them.

 

My only point in my post to Seth was that there are lots of other cultures who are fortunately not as repressed as ours and have maintained the concept of trance and dance music throughout their history. There is no implication on my part that this music hasn't changed or shouldn't change, but it does pain me to hear the words "trance" and "jungle" co-opted by young Western ravers when it is no such thing. I don't say this out of snobbery or "purism" about genres or labels, but because people seem to think electronic music just means using different instrumentation - that there is no deeper, more fundamental difference. And that, by accepting that one thing is the same as another, ravers may not find what they themselves are actually seeking.

 

Doesn't anyone besides me see the irony here: Young people desperately try to break free of the repressive societal machine that has stolen their ecstatic experiences and attempted to control them... by dancing to music whose rhythms are dictated by a machine.

 

Ravers take E and dance together to reclaim the kind of bonding and communalism that was once second nature to humans... yet the music they're dancing to was probably programmed by some guy sitting alone in a room with a computer.

 

Sorry but I just find this beyond bizarre to say the least!

 

Also remember that electronic dance music is in its infancy; it doesn't have the heritage that other forms have. Some 20 year old raver is going to end up being the next Miles Davis 20 years from now. Already, I'm seeing more maturity and complexity in dance music.

 

I certainly don't question the level of talent required to make good electronic music, or the creativity and experimental aspects of it. I think all of these could be (and sometimes have been) used to good effect. The problems I see in it are (just to restate and sum up): 1) loss of communality among the musicians who write and play it, and 2) the fact that machine driven music (which is not the same thing as a person playing synths live) is physically repressive - our bodies do not move in perfect time.

 

Maybe one day they'll have a virtual reality synthesizer where the musician wears a full body glove and the tempo and dynamics of the sequencer respond to movement. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif These could even be installed in dance clubs so when the ravers change tempo or dynamic, so does the music! That could be interesting. But I dunno, it seems better to me to just get a bunch of people in a room to play music together while other people dance. Perish the thought. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-27-2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 10-27-2000).]

[rsi77]

To change the subject a bit: I wasn't very fond of "electronic" music until I started hearing some form of it used in a bunch of movie soundtracks (e.g. "The Saint", "The Insider").

I don't know if what I heard was "genuine" by electronic music standards, but it was very effective as far as I'm concerned. In fact I would like to learn about producing similar type music as what I heard in these movies. Particularly "The Insider". What genre of electronic music does this represent?

I am so intrigued by what I've heard that I've really like to incorporate it into some projects I'm working on. Could anybody point me to any resources that could help me get started in this? I bought Reaktor 2.3 to get started. Was this a good/bad choice? (I also own Cubase VST 32). I'm particulalry interested in pads which change character rythmically (called rythmic swells?).

Thanks,

Ron

(feel free to e-mail me with suggestions--ronald.inman@airliquide.com)

[Guest]

Anderton, thanks for clarifying allot of my points. The thing about the "scene" is that it is definately centered around E use, which when first experienced is fantastic and mind opening(much like the vibe of the 60's). It is different than any other drug as far as listening to music- E, for some unknown reason fits techno perfectly- it just compliments it in a special way- try it, you'll see. After awhile though, you come to realize that it is usually a drug induced corny love everyone feeling. It has little to do with reality. When you are in a room full of people(99% of which are rolling hard) and the beat builds up and then boom...everyone is having a blast- a feeling that everyone is bonded together flows through the room. It's as if everyone is waiting for "something big" to happen. It feels communal but in reality you are just some guy on drugs at a club. I have had allot of emotional growth and productive, positive problem solving experiences with my girlfriend while on E and being around the techno scene but it just gets cheap after awhile. I agree that it is a modern substitute for a once very real bonding feeling. Our modern culture has lost the old ways. The people that get really into the scene really believe in their P.L.U.R. motto (Peace,Love,Understanding,Respect) or at least they think they do. I wonder if they really understand the meaning of those words. I personally think it is more about looking a certain way and "making the scene" - it is lacking substance. I do really love the music though- that is what drove me away from the clubs. They don't play the stuff I like(at least where I live-Florida sucks!!) and I got sick of complaining about crappy break-beat DJ's. I have found trance and jungle and ambient dub to be much more interesting and thought provoking. If the music makes you feel good, it can't be all bad! I listen to Moby and Bassment Jaxx as much as I listen to Incubs,The Deftones and Soulfly- you have to open-minded with music. There is some great electronic stuff out there if you look for it.

[Anderton]

>>There are thousands of minute variations, changing in response to the music and the other musicians, and it is a physical response, a FELT response, not something you could have thought of from the comfort of the control room or a computer.<<

 

I don't step edit parts, I play them manually. Those variations are in there, just sometimes they vary too much . My favoriate quantization option is quantization strength, as it preserves the variations but tightens things up.

 

>>The fact that this seems to be OK with a lot of people (or even something to be "corrected" for when you do have a live drummer), or that nobody notices it, is what creeps me out.<<

 

I'm not sure people don't notice it. I think there's acorrelation to the fact that the SR-16 is the best-selling drum unit of all time, and all the presets were recorded by a drummer using MIDI pads, not programmed.

 

>>Yes, there is no doubt that being able to program music electronically makes things more convenient. However, I don't consider music a convenience snack food. It is tempting to make your meals by throwing a frozen dinner in the microwave or hitting a fast food joint, and you might even LIKE that kind of food sometimes, but I think we can all agree it ain't gourmet, and that we are losing something when we do this.<<

 

I don't think "programming" music is any different from Beethoven "programming" notes on sheet music. There is a distinct difference between composition and live performance. I agree that it's great when you can combine the two, but sometimes at 3 AM out in the countryside, there aren't any drummers around anyway...I don't think composition HAS to be a communal process, but I think there's a distinct benefit when it is (e.g., Lennon/McCartney). These days, I get to experience a lot of that when people do remixes of my tunes.