TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Progress in music, moving music forward, etc.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nefardec when was the last time you heard something that was so original you couldn't remember anything that sounded like it - it reminded you of nothing? |
hmm i see most of his stuff as recycled older detroit, nu-jazz and electro sounds. it seems like you haven't heard a lot of 90s detroit house - most of his sounds can be found in that amazing body of work.
however, MJ and CJ are still awesome. I think "W" is a pretty unique track. The arrangements for sure are unique as far as the detroit sound goes, and that's where the real innovation comes.
I mean the name itself is rather retrospective - 'cobblestone jazz'. I would describe what they do as rearranging classic detroit sounds with a minimalistic contemporary technique and an improvised, jazz approach.
i wouldn't call them 'fresh sounds', mainly just 'good music'. there's nothing wrong with that. most of what i play and buy i wouldn't describe as 'fresh' either, i just like deep, beautiful, captivating, mysterious, wonderful music
dance music has had a lack of creativity for a while now. its bad enough when someone sits down and says they're going to make a dance track, but even worse when they say they're going to make a HOUSE track, or MINIMAL track, or TECHNO track. they are already setting boundaries and limiting creativity in the process. furthermore, the fact that an EDM scene exists in the first place is not good either. when a scene exists (for any type of music, not just EDM), producers make music to please people that are familiar with that type of music already. so its this cycle that builds off stuff that's been done before.
nowadays, techno is a bad word, and is used to describe "that repetitive shit" that is not hip hop/rock/anything on the radio with lyrics that dumb people can sing to. what ive realized lately is, these people are not dumb, WE are the ones who are dumb and have not realized we have "beatitis" or "beat addiction". people make a track with the intention of it being played at 4am at a certain setting, with certain sound system requirements, having visions of undergroundness grandeur.
what we all as djs and producers in the EDM scene need to do is step out of the scene and start hanging out with normal people. try to make normal people dance any way that you can. dont make excuses when the frat crowd doesnt like your minimal repetitive shit, try to understand where they are coming from and figure out how to make them move. everything is too underground minded and needs to be more sensible and have more variety, this will save it from sounding boring to the average listener. another thing that will save dance music is actual albums, a concept seemingly lost these days. why is there no producer out there that can make an album that has just about every genre represented? for example an album with a minimal track, a dnb track, a vocal house track, etc? is it because of the rules of the industry?
anyway, new thing lately seems to be live remixing/cutting up existing music to make new music like girl talk and believe it or not is the same thing richie hawtin does as well, despite having completely different sounds and audiences, their process is very similiar. the future also lies in indie rock bands stealing the 4x4 dance beat like chromeo, simian mobile disco, guns n bombs,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edykp_tRqUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEfKBEWGQwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0zrZSxJNU4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtmhGthP7vk
im sure those of you stuck in underground world will cringe at this, but remember where our music came from. it started with depeche mode, joy division, prodigy, and from there went more repetitive and further from traditional music forms. dance music needs a big reset button pressed on it, and that means start over from the beginning, start by making normal music again like the old days and then go underground from there.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stev�sto dance music has had a lack of creativity for a while now. its bad enough when someone sits down and says they're going to make a dance track, but even worse when they say they're going to make a HOUSE track, or MINIMAL track, or TECHNO track. they are already setting boundaries and limiting creativity in the process. furthermore, the fact that an EDM scene exists in the first place is not good either. when a scene exists (for any type of music, not just EDM), producers make music to please people that are familiar with that type of music already. so its this cycle that builds off stuff that's been done before. nowadays, techno is a bad word, and is used to describe "that repetitive shit" that is not hip hop/rock/anything on the radio with lyrics that dumb people can sing to. what ive realized lately is, these people are not dumb, WE are the ones who are dumb and have not realized we have "beatitis" or "beat addiction". people make a track with the intention of it being played at 4am at a certain setting, with certain sound system requirements, having visions of undergroundness grandeur. what we all as djs and producers in the EDM scene need to do is step out of the scene and start hanging out with normal people. try to make normal people dance any way that you can. dont make excuses when the frat crowd doesnt like your minimal repetitive shit, try to understand where they are coming from and figure out how to make them move. everything is too underground minded and needs to be more sensible and have more variety, this will save it from sounding boring to the average listener. another thing that will save dance music is actual albums, a concept seemingly lost these days. why is there no producer out there that can make an album that has just about every genre represented? for example an album with a minimal track, a dnb track, a vocal house track, etc? is it because of the rules of the industry? anyway, new thing lately seems to be live remixing/cutting up existing music to make new music like girl talk and believe it or not is the same thing richie hawtin does as well, despite having completely different sounds and audiences, their process is very similiar. the future also lies in indie rock bands stealing the 4x4 dance beat like chromeo, simian mobile disco, guns n bombs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edykp_tRqUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEfKBEWGQwg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0zrZSxJNU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtmhGthP7vk im sure those of you stuck in underground world will cringe at this, but remember where our music came from. it started with depeche mode, joy division, prodigy, and from there went more repetitive and further from traditional music forms. dance music needs a big reset button pressed on it, and that means start over from the beginning, start by making normal music again like the old days and then go underground from there. |
Never been into people , who say for example , ''i like a progressive track with elements of goa mixed with a bit of anthem and epic trance , over a hint of minimal and a hard house theme, seperated by a strong funky house drive,
THATS my kinda music''
But thats the way of the music business these days ,
But as long as money plays a part , sounds will follow the cash , full stop!
plus , no offence , im sick of long haired guitar wierdos telling me how trance is not music and a geek with a guitar is the only thing i should hear!but the same applies to EDM fanatics as well.
Its a sad end but all non-profit genres will be driven underground and all music that will be played to the dumb,popularised,young and willing to part with cash for music people will eat itself out and collapse in a remix pile of crap
Bad days ahead
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stev�sto what we all as djs and producers in the EDM scene need to do is step out of the scene and start hanging out with normal people. try to make normal people dance any way that you can. dont make excuses when the frat crowd doesnt like your minimal repetitive shit, try to understand where they are coming from and figure out how to make them move. |
nefardec, while I agree with most of what you said, I think wether or not a song is feasible to our ears and stomach will depend on who is the person listening, that is obvious of course, but my point can only be visualized if I provide few examples of my own.
I think Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream were just as groundbreaking as Aphex Twin and Robert Henke, the latter I consider as more recent examples, of musicians with a vision of the future. I think 'forward-thinking' would apply to all music that stretches and defies it's own parameters. Michael Mayer once said that 'minimal' is a genre that has been a victim of it's own self-imposed rules
| quote: |
| Originally posted by bas 3. Calling Guns N' Bombs, Simian Mobile Disco and Chromeo "bands" isn't fair to bands. They're live performers yes, but imo, a band requires actual instruments and more than two people |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nefardec here's a question: when was the last time you heard something that was so original you couldn't remember anything that sounded like it - it reminded you of nothing? |
Vocals Vocals Vocals.
GOOD Vocal tracks will never get old (Look how many bloody remixes have been spat out from the older ones). Write that down!
(and get to work on some good vocals!)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stev�sto what we all as djs and producers in the EDM scene need to do is step out of the scene and start hanging out with normal people. try to make normal people dance any way that you can. dont make excuses when the frat crowd doesnt like your minimal repetitive shit, try to understand where they are coming from and figure out how to make them move. everything is too underground minded and needs to be more sensible and have more variety, this will save it from sounding boring to the average listener. another thing that will save dance music is actual albums, a concept seemingly lost these days. why is there no producer out there that can make an album that has just about every genre represented? for example an album with a minimal track, a dnb track, a vocal house track, etc? is it because of the rules of the industry? anyway, new thing lately seems to be live remixing/cutting up existing music to make new music like girl talk and believe it or not is the same thing richie hawtin does as well, despite having completely different sounds and audiences, their process is very similiar. the future also lies in indie rock bands stealing the 4x4 dance beat like chromeo, simian mobile disco, guns n bombs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edykp_tRqUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEfKBEWGQwg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0zrZSxJNU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtmhGthP7vk im sure those of you stuck in underground world will cringe at this, but remember where our music came from. it started with depeche mode, joy division, prodigy, and from there went more repetitive and further from traditional music forms. dance music needs a big reset button pressed on it, and that means start over from the beginning, start by making normal music again like the old days and then go underground from there. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by StephenWiley Vocals Vocals Vocals. GOOD Vocal tracks will never get old (Look how many bloody remixes have been spat out from the older ones). Write that down! (and get to work on some good vocals!) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I think the problem is not that there is nothing new to be done, but that there's too little impetus to do it. If you make something genuinely new, something that genuinely sounds like nothing else, DJs won't play it. They won't be able to fit it in without a jarring effect unless they're very good. People are less likely to listen, because people like to hear what they know, so the audience is limited. It becomes the domain of unsigned, unheard, unplayed music |
I think music needs a new technology to make a noticeable progress. Everything's going digital now, but that's more or less just emulating analog without adding anything significant.
Retrospection is indeed the main theme of this year - we see many re-releases of old techno/house classic EPs and albums (which can be a good thing for those who missed it back then) and the Detroit and Chicago sounds are prominent in today's productions. Dance music has finally aged, 90s become oldies... do the 00s have actually something genuine to offer for future reference?
I think that Kandinsky wonderfully sums it up with what he called "the 3 mystical necessities". Here is an interesting article about his theory:
| quote: |
| In my last entry I discussed Kandinsky's theory that the artist "must express what is peculiar to oneself," proposed as one of the three "mystical necessities" that define artwork of lasting value, and I suggested that this may be an impossible challenge to meet since I cannot think of any human attribute that is not shared. In trying to come up with a related set of principles that I felt I could agree with, I came up with: 1. Art of lasting value tends to have qualities that are both personal and universal. Before I go on, I want to sneak in a second principle, one that was also mentioned in my previous entry: 2. It often causes us to reflect on the subject in a different way (Perspective). And, while I'm at it, I'll add a couple more: 3. It speaks to us; people (but not all people, necessarily) feel a connection to it. 4. It often touches on the mysterious. I think that #3 is self-evident (but I'd welcome input from anyone would like to suggest otherwise!); most of us value an art work because we feel a connection to it. I think this is where the notion that "art is in the eye of the beholder" comes from. I touched on the quality of mystery in part 2 of this series. What I'm getting at is the idea that it is one thing for art to grab our attention, and it is another to hold it. There needs to be something there that makes us want to continue our engagement with the art, and perhaps that thing, or at least one element of that thing, is mystery. The Mona Lisa is a good example of this. What the heck is she half-smiling about? It's a mystery, but maybe if we stare at it long enough� 5. It often touches on the sublime. Maybe #4 and #5 are two aspects of the same thing, but I made a separate entry for 'the sublime' because of the number of times I have heard people refer to God in reference to art; for some, great art is evidence of the divine, or at least of the way divinity is expressed through human creations. An art work that is highly valued is often said to be greater than the sum of its parts, and perhaps this is because it touches on the sublime, a quality that is difficult to quantify. 6. It usually demonstrates technical excellence. I throw "technique" into the mix because it's one of my pet causes as a music teacher. The better your technical skills, the better equipped you are to create the kind of art you imagine. Are there 'great' works of art with poor or even average technique? Perhaps; both 'greatness' and 'technique' are qualities that are debatable (although the former more than the latter, I think), but it seems to me that most art referred to as 'great' also demonstrates excellent technique. Kandinsky's second "mystical necessity" is that the artist "must express what is peculiar to one's own time," and that is something I think is undeniable. What makes it particularly interesting in our time is that post-modernist art often draws on the art of periods other than our own, but in a way that usually is distinguishable from the art of earlier periods. I do this in some (or much?) of my own compositions; "Dream Dance," for example has sections that evoke (for me, at least) the music of Bach, Haydn, Phillip Glass, Scott Joplin, and Gershwin. In my programme note for the piece I call it an example of "Poly-stylism" because of this, but a composition that mixes styles in this way could not have been written in any period other than our own. Here's the way I'd put it: 7. It is recognizably of its own time. Kankinsky's third "mystical necessity" speaks to a transcendent quality in art, which he calls "the pure and eternally artistic which pervades every individual, every people, every age, and which is to be seen in the works of every artist, of every nation, and of every period, and which, being the principal elements of art, knows neither time nor space." He rather goes over the top here, does he not? In any event, I think I understand what he means, and I mostly agree with it, although I think it is important to add tha but it's hard to think of art that is felt to be meaningful to "every individual, every people, every age," etc. The Taj Mahal might come close to this kind of pan-cultural ideal, but for the most part, it seems to me that art's appeal tends to have a strong element of culture-specificity. The art of Beethoven, Kandinsky, and yes, even yours truly are not held in equally high regard in all parts of the world (or even within western culture), and, conversely, it has only been in the last few decades that many people in our culture have begun to appreciate and value music from non-western cultures. |
well i completely agree with kandinsky, but at the same time have this sentiment, from hermann hesse in 'steppenwolf'
| quote: |
| Then what does it depend on?/On making music, Herr Haller, on making music as well and as much as possible, and with all the intensity of which one is capable. That is the point, Monsieur. Though I carried the complete works of Bach and Haydn in my head and could say the cleverest things about them, not a soul would be the better for it. But when I take hold of my mouthpiece and play a lively shimmy, whether the shimmy be good or bad, it will give people pleasure. It gets into their legs and into their blood. That's the point and that alone. Look at the faces in a dance hall at the moment when the music strikes up after a longish pause, how eyes sparkle, legs twitch and faces begin to laugh. That is why one makes music. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nefardec well i completely agree with kandinsky, but at the same time have this sentiment, from hermann hesse in 'steppenwolf' i think it's easy to get caught up in some kind of self-important and pretentious vortex when making music and art. in reality, some dude on the street playing his saxophone for coins can touch on the sublime and mysterious without even trying, etc i completely believe in the importance of the mystery, in fact, that is more or less all i care about, and is the subject of the album i am working on. however, i think that the mystery can be shared in the most mundane acts as well as the most sublime and 'lofty' |
good point
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nefardec actually that's exactly what i am doing with my residency. it is definitely a challenge i've always believed in the universal power of good music. if something is really good it can penetrate into anyone's heart. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by bas I just wanted to clarify that I don't think not referring to these guys as bands doesn't discredit their musical ability by any means. I feel that in order to be a 'band' in the musical sense, you have to hit something or strum something real |
So basically what you guys are talking about here is this:
Music written to try and capture the attention and emotions of any old bloke who happens to hear it...
...versus...
Music written to please members of a "scene" who already know and like similar music.
I guess I can go with that distinction, and agree that it might be productive if more "strictly dance" producers tried to make some of the former more often.
imo, "our" music can only go forward if it is going back to the underground...and no money involved .
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.