it has dawned on me that music that has no soul does not benefit the listener

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- it has dawned on me that music that has no soul does not benefit the listener
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by Mattsanity. on Nov-04-2011 21:00:

it has dawned on me that music that has no soul does not benefit the listener

if people want to enjoy life via music, soulful music is required. I'm not saying soulful as in a actual genre if there is one, but I'm using that as a proper adjective. even if brainless music sounds good, if it's overbearing, then it could lessen your morals and make you think you need some stupid chemicals to enjoy it. I'm not going to single out any artist or track, but if it goes BOOM BOOM BOOM and has no conscience, then it should be avoided in my opinion. I'm not surprised that my last mix, a tribal house mix got 0 replies. I'm not here to promote that - I'm just ok that no one gave a rat's ass about that mix. tribal house has decent music, but in my case, it didn't benefit my soul whatsoever. now I understand that the neighbours are justified when they get angry about nonsensical, crazy music.

Posted by Adam420 on Nov-04-2011 21:08:

Good job Matt

Posted by Vector A on Nov-04-2011 21:17:

Matt, you are the goofiest poster in MD.

Posted by wolftickets on Nov-04-2011 21:36:

Same for music that has fallen victim to the loudness war. No dynamics=no soul.

Posted by Mattsanity. on Nov-04-2011 21:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam420
Good job Matt

word.

quote:
Matt, you are the goofiest poster in MD.

please hire an exorcist.

quote:
Same for music that has fallen victim to the loudness war. No dynamics=no soul.

this is war. we must fight the power.

Posted by meriter on Nov-04-2011 21:45:

THERE IS A FUCKING WAR GOING ON AND WE COULD ALWAYS USE A FEW GOOD MEN

Posted by pozz on Nov-04-2011 22:09:

it has dawned on me that music has no soul, and needs none.

Posted by jvs on Nov-04-2011 22:13:

I have like 40k souls in Dark Souls, that's enough for me.

Posted by Sykonee on Nov-05-2011 00:13:

Pitchfork gave the soul in music a 6.7.

Posted by corjay9 on Nov-05-2011 00:37:

I LISTEN TO DUBSTEP WHILE WORKING OUT AT THE GYM AND THERES NO SOUL IN THAT BUT IT STILL MAKES ME WANT TO DONKEY PUNCH A NUN.

Posted by freakster on Nov-05-2011 03:01:

sorry dude, hate to break the news but armada requires your your soul in exchange for your first asot download so you wont find many here. Id also advise against posting in the above & beyond forum, theyre pretty much out over there too.

Posted by Guest on Nov-05-2011 05:33:

Re: it has dawned on me that music that has no soul does not benefit the listener

quote:
Originally posted by Mattinsanity
if people want to enjoy life via music, soulful music is required. I'm not saying soulful as in a actual genre if there is one, but I'm using that as a proper adjective. even if brainless music sounds good, if it's overbearing, then it could lessen your morals and make you think you need some stupid chemicals to enjoy it. I'm not going to single out any artist or track, but if it goes BOOM BOOM BOOM and has no conscience, then it should be avoided in my opinion. I'm not surprised that my last mix, a tribal house mix got 0 replies. I'm not here to promote that - I'm just ok that no one gave a rat's ass about that mix. tribal house has decent music, but in my case, it didn't benefit my soul whatsoever. now I understand that the neighbours are justified when they get angry about nonsensical, crazy music.

I like this post

Posted by saluyamo on Nov-05-2011 06:25:

quote:
if people want to enjoy life via music, soulful music is required. I'm not saying soulful as in a actual genre if there is one, but I'm using that as a proper adjective. even if brainless music sounds good, if it's overbearing, then it could lessen your morals and make you think you need some stupid chemicals to enjoy it. I'm not going to single out any artist or track, but if it goes BOOM BOOM BOOM and has no conscience, then it should be avoided in my opinion.

Techno=Bad
Sam Cooke=Good

Posted by Mattsanity. on Nov-05-2011 12:23:

quote:
Originally posted by saluyamo
Techno=Bad
Sam Cooke=Good

this is an interesting analogy. sam cooke is a legendary soul artist, while techno can sound superficial and spineless. But of course there's techno tracks with abundant depth to them. they're the reasons why the word techno is an intelligent term and shouldn't be degraded. it's funny how the famous rapper from detroit said nobody listens to techno when the very own city he's from is famous for the same music.

now this is a track by none other than Dalek, and based on the song title, he has a strong belief in atheism. I'm not sure how this can encourage, uplift, or inspire someone to accomplish something in any way, shape, or form. I'm not judging his intentions when he made this track but to me, it sounds soulless and is in need of a remixing deity.

Posted by Mattsanity. on Nov-05-2011 12:48:

EddieZilker asked in another thread what constitutes soul. I'm not saying my definition is law, but the track needs to not only move the body, but also move the heart. a lot those soulless tracks can move the body only for the druggy to collapse while the paramedics are forced to clear the floor. then the nightclub is forced to shut down.

yeah Corvin Dalek, if you're reading this, Im sorry for singling out your track.

Posted by ziptnf on Nov-05-2011 12:52:

I think if you enjoy listening to a certain type of music, it shouldn't fucking matter if it has soul or not. I don't think people need to be subconsciously questioning themselves how soulful the music they are hearing is.

Posted by Ian on Nov-05-2011 13:53:

Music is to each individual something different. To say that music with no soul doesn't benefit the listener therefore is too widespread a generalisation. If you're trying to reason with yourself that what you listen to must have soul then you're trying too hard. Relax and don't hit 'new thread' for everything that comes into your mind

Posted by saluyamo on Nov-05-2011 14:04:

quote:
this is a track by none other than Dalek, and based on the song title, he has a strong belief in atheism. I'm not sure how this can encourage, uplift, or inspire someone to accomplish something in any way, shape, or form. I'm not judging his intentions when he made this track but to me, it sounds soulless and is in need of a remixing deity.

Unless the musician themselves say that their music is to inspire/uplift etc why does it need to do those things?

Posted by pozz on Nov-05-2011 15:07:

i don't think you've listened to enough sets. putting tracks together in a set requiers you to juxtapose all kinds of sounds. that corvin dalek track could be made to sound crazy with the right placement, with some uplifting stuff coming a few tracks later.

one of the problems these days is that everyone wants soul, and sooner or later that means filling your tracks with so much "fullness" or "wholeness" that there is no space to breath. commercial hiphop releases are sounding like ambient music. and trance. and house. and industrial. every damn genre wants youto "float" with it on soulful, joyous waves.

if you're looking for the difference between good and bad music, you wont find it in "soul".

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Nov-05-2011 15:22:

When Matt says "soul", he means "melody".

Posted by pozz on Nov-05-2011 15:29:

another thing: trance and techno were always criticized for having no soul. for being repetitive, soulless tripe.

that's not how trance works: you headnod like a fool until you reach hypnosis or transcendence and there's where you find your soul -- happend to me so many times at home or on the dancefloor. it's to do with a way of listening that many have to learn, and that's pretty difficult when you grow up on pop music, the epitome of "soul" and goddamn joyous feelings. trance and techno and house are (were, really) the new tribal music.

Posted by meriter on Nov-05-2011 15:33:

Posted by EddieZilker on Nov-05-2011 17:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Mattinsanity
EddieZilker asked in another thread what constitutes soul. I'm not saying my definition is law, but the track needs to not only move the body, but also move the heart. a lot those soulless tracks can move the body only for the druggy to collapse while the paramedics are forced to clear the floor. then the nightclub is forced to shut down.

In other words, it's a nebulously defined ideal which is measured subjectively and is not a condition any two people could definitely agree is present.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by klappa on Nov-05-2011 19:01:

Re: it has dawned on me that music that has no soul does not benefit the listener

Posted by pointPi on Nov-05-2011 19:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Mattinsanity
EddieZilker asked in another thread what constitutes soul. I'm not saying my definition is law, but the track needs to not only move the body, but also move the heart.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to strongly disagree on that point. First of all, your heart is nothing but a muscle whose sole task is to pump out blood to the rest of the body. The heart has nothing to do with emotions.

Second of all, and I'm presuming by heart you meant your emotions, ART IS SCIENCE! We know that there are several neurological and evolutionary reasons behind to what we consider good music, and none of them has to do with "soul". In fact, they all have to do with craftsmanship and aesthetic value. Here's a video that explains it:

To further elaborate, the way we are hard wired in the brain is the explanation to why why we e.g. consider a minor chord a sad AND listenable sequence of vibrations.

Anyway, I've recently been thinking about why I tend to have a weak spot for uplifting trance, but not for say mainstream pop or happy hardcore. I wondered "how come?" and came up with conclusion "complexity, sexual neutrality and aesthetic value", not soul.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »