TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- what are your unpopular opinions on electronica, not giving a f?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Right, that's exactly what I said. You're the queen of either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what people say to fit your agenda. What I said is that I believe soul is derived from the music itself, and not the manner in which it's mixed, which is in disagreement with the supposition that "soulful mixing" is a talent which Theo possesses. Sloppy and jarring (nice choice of words System-J) transitions are not soulful, they're sloppy. So, as I said the first time, he can play very soulful music, but IMO his poor mixing techniques detract from the quality/soulful nature of the tracks he's playing. Calling his music "art" doesn't excuse objectively poor mixing.

We're not even talking about his deejaying. It seems like you are conflating his deejaying and his production. What he deejays isn't 'his music' much of the time.

So when you said:

quote:

"Soul" comes from the music and not from the mixing. That being said, even the most soulful tracks somehow lose what makes them special when mixed together in a shoddy manner

you were talking about him deejaying other peoples music, or mixing down his own productions in the studio? since we were discussing his productions, I assumed the latter, in which case it would definitely sound like you were saying that his music lacks 'soul' because of the way he mixes it down.

Since when are you the authority on what is and isn't soulful? Certainly Theo's music and techniques are his own, and represent his own 'soul', regardless of whether you like it or not. I happen to love how 'sloppy and jarring' much of his music is.

The original post Re: soul was a response to stevo's idea that sloppiness in mixing is where the "soul" comes from in DJing.

quote:

Originally posted by stev� I can understand sloppiness in djing too, it can sound good or bad. It sounds good when the dj makes the best of it and keeps that "flow" going, that imo is where the "soul" comes in with djing.

I wasn't speaking about his productions. The whole point is that his shoddy mixing doesn't keep the "flow" going.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 The original post Re: soul was a response to stevo's idea that sloppiness in mixing is where the "soul" comes from in DJing. I wasn't speaking about his productions.

Actually, we're talking about what Mark Anthony posted:

quote:

Originally posted by Guest Yea his productions just sound sloppy in some cases. I think people graviate towards him in an era where everything is very tight. He's loosey goosey with the controls.

quote:

Originally posted by Guest Okay, how about sloppy drunk? Its like he's using old equipment, and fans are excited to be listening to music made on old equipment? I'm not hating on all of his productins. I like what he did with his remix of Kuniyuki - All These Things. For the most part cannot get down with original Theo material on Sound Signture

quote:

Originally posted by Guest I guess that's why its an unpopular opinion. Something about his mode of production just irritates me. I can't really justify it with logic

PS, it isn't sloppy drunk - it's sloppy stoned.

quote:

Originally posted by stev� I can understand sloppiness in djing too, it can sound good or bad. It sounds good when the dj makes the best of it and keeps that "flow" going, that imo is where the "soul" comes in with djing.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 "Soul" comes from the music and not from the mixing. That being said, even the most soulful tracks somehow lose what makes them special when mixed together in a shoddy manner IMO the whole point of mixing is to blur the meeting point of where one song ends and the next begins. Recklessly slamming one track into another isn't "soulful mixing" it's lazy. Almost as if he's saying "I'm Theo Parrish so I don't have to give a fuck, people will like it anyways." I would imagine Theo Parrish doesn't get many new fans for that reason. The people who like him have liked him for a long time. I really doubt many new listeners tune in and say "Oh wow, I really love fader slams. Did he just not beatmatch at all? BRILLIANT!"

ftfy

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 ftfy

i guess you missed the previous sentence?

quote:

Originally posted by stev� I think its fine if the errors in the production are by accident. It's been said in interviews of early 90's producers a lot of things that were a hit came by accident because of messing around with knobs and such. But if someone deliberately puts errors in the production to simulate an experimental vibe, thats lame.

He says 'I understand sloppiness in deejaying too, in other words, as an aside.

anyway this is a stupid thing to bicker about.

Yes I understand that. Am I only allowed to disagree with somebody's central thesis?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Do you think Theo Parrish has any technical virtuosity whatsoever?

I never claimed so. I think he is creative and passionate, and I think it comes through with his music which resonates well with me. But that is not the point. The point is you claiming there is this whole underlying philosophy or central idea in making music with machines almost as if to say that things being robotic is part of it all and when someone says/does otherwise it's "that guy is a fraud, off with his 'trying to put some SOUL in my music' head." LOL who the fuck do some of you think you are, honestly? Music is a form of expression, whether it is being made on a piano or a 303.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid I never claimed so.

I'm not saying you claimed so. I'm asking you a question. Answer, please.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm not saying you claimed so. I'm asking you a question. Answer, please.

Ok. Technical virtuosity would imply a mastery of his medium. Based on his music I'd say yes, but this is a difficult question to answer since I don't know how he works in a studio.

doesn't virtuosity already imply technical?

quote:

Originally posted by MSZ long live tranceaddict, haven of trolls and bullshit.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Ok. Technical virtuosity would imply a mastery of his medium. Based on his music I'd say yes, but this is a difficult question to answer since I don't know how he works in a studio.

It is a difficult question. It's almost as if sequenced electronic music by its very nature makes it hard to distinguish the process, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It is a difficult question. It's almost as if sequenced electronic music by its very nature makes it hard to distinguish the process, isn't it?

May be so, that is a very fair assumption. But what is your point? Should producers never try to break out of the mold their medium sets up for them, even if it means hindering their expressiveness?

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid May be so, that is a very fair assumption. But what is your point? Should producers never try to break out of the mold their medium sets up for them, even if it means hindering their expressiveness?

Determining skill (and thus virtuosity) requires being able to discern process. The de-emphasis is, to a certain degree, an inevitability of the form.

Also, what you don't seem to have realised in your blind fanboy rebuttal frenzy is that I wasn't referring to Theo Parrish at all when I was discussing technical virtuosity. I thought it was curious you highlighted that topic and so I wanted to figure out exactly what the fuck you think it has to do with him.

There's also the strange fact that you and several other Parrish fans repeatedly stated that Parrish as a DJ is not about technically super-smooth mixing but all about playing good music and creating good flow. If that isn't de-emphasis of technical virtuosity, I'm not sure what is.

So to recap, two points:

1. The things I'm saying are not so much people's attitudes towards the form, but corollaries of the form itself.
2. Actually read and think about my points instead of just rushing in to disagree because I replied to a post with the words "Theo Parrish" in and used some negative adjectives.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Determining skill (and thus virtuosity) requires being able to discern process. The de-emphasis is, to a certain degree, an inevitability of the form.

Ok, that's a fair perspective. I don't happen to think it is that simple.

quote:

Also, what you don't seem to have realised in your blind fanboy rebuttal frenzy is that I wasn't referring to Theo Parrish at all when I was discussing technical virtuosity. I thought it was curious you highlighted that topic and so I wanted to figure out exactly what the fuck you think it has to do with him.

You specifically quoted this:

quote:

Originally posted by Guest Yea his productions just sound sloppy in some cases. I think people graviate towards him in an era where everything is very tight. He's loosey goosey with the controls.

and responded with this:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J People have this fucking stupid idea that deliberately including minor imperfections in electronic music somehow gives it more "soul". It's the same idiot logic that declares using DAWs makes production too easy or that laptop DJing sucks because there's no performance in someone staring at a screen. Get some perspective, you twats.

And you wanna tell me that you weren't insinuating Theo Parrish "deliberately includes minor imperfections" in his music? IT WAS A TRICK! I know you're smarter than that, Jack. That was really fucking dumb what you just tried to do there. Carrying on...

quote:

There's also the strange fact that you and several other Parrish fans repeatedly stated that Parrish as a DJ is not about technically super-smooth mixing but all about playing good music and creating good flow. If that isn't de-emphasis of technical virtuosity, I'm not sure what is.

For the second time, I was never defending Theo as a DJ in this thread. I was defending the music he produces. If you wanna continue discussing his DJing we can always hop back over to the sucky DJs thread.

quote:

So to recap, two points: 1. The things I'm saying are not so much people's attitudes towards the form, but corollaries of the form itself. 2. Actually read and think about my points instead of just rushing in to disagree because I replied to a post with the words "Theo Parrish" in and used some negative adjectives.

1. Sure, that may be the case. I've never denied that through my argument. My point is fuck these corollaries. I think people like you give them way too much importance.
2. Your assumptions are bold, but nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid And you wanna tell me that you weren't insinuating Theo Parrish "deliberately includes minor imperfections" in his music? IT WAS A TRICK! I know you're smarter than that, Jack. That was really fucking dumb what you just tried to do there. Carrying on...

Yeah, sure. Just a shame we're talking about technical virtuosity and not minor imperfections here, and that I mentioned technical virtuosity in a separate post replying to a different poster.

You seem to be just replying in a frantic, sloppy, almost randomised way, picking out unrelated sentences of my posts where you think you can pick holes.

glad to see this thread is now somehow about theo parrish, pretty funny actually

i really like the idea of these kinds of threads but i really don't like when you have that one person (or in this case and thread, more than one, infact everyone) who can't handle that some people happen to have a different taste in music.

i know i am a total hypocrite in this case but i really don't care in this one.

unpopular opinions then...

i like theo parrish and his music but fuck his fans. same goes for fans of kdj, pink floyd, led zeppelin, underground resistance, the beatles, elvis presley, richie hawtin, ricardo villalobos and countless others. fuck you people, in most cases you suck all the fun out of music.

I personally think that Theo Parrish is great. I don't even think he's sloppy. I don't see where you guys are coming from. He doesn't sound "big" like most tracks are these days. He isn't making glaring mistakes in his mix downs at all, it just doesn't sound HUGE which doesn't mean it's bad.

I feel like a minority here, but I will say that trance is actually great music. I personally like to stick with 90s-2005 though.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Yeah, sure. Just a shame we're talking about technical virtuosity and not minor imperfections here, and that I mentioned technical virtuosity in a separate post replying to a different poster.

We are only talking about it now because you asked me if I though he had any. That's not at all what I was referring to when I first quoted you.

quote:

You seem to be just replying in a frantic, sloppy, almost randomised way, picking out unrelated sentences of my posts where you think you can pick holes.

Not all, if anything I'd say you're making this really difficult since you won't add any input to anything I post. It just seems like you're trying really hard to make this a one-sided debate.

Let's pick it up here though, because I though this was the most interesting thing you've posted yet:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Determining skill (and thus virtuosity) requires being able to discern process. The de-emphasis is, to a certain degree, an inevitability of the form.

Do you really believe that it is that black and white? Skill can't be determined though other means? Especially in things like dance music where process (in specifics anyway) is almost always indiscernible? Maybe I'm not fully understanding the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- I personally think that Theo Parrish is great. I don't even think he's sloppy. I don't see where you guys are coming from. He doesn't sound "big" like most tracks are these days. He isn't making glaring mistakes in his mix downs at all, it just doesn't sound HUGE which doesn't mean it's bad. I feel like a minority here, but I will say that trance is actually great music. I personally like to stick with 90s-2005 though.

he is sometimes, but as i said - exactly as sloppy as he wants to be.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec he is sometimes, but as i said - exactly as sloppy as he wants to be.

I'd draw an analogy to Trey Anastasio from Phish here, but I think it'd be lost on this audience.

Suffice to say, the notion that he's sometimes at his best when he's "sloppy" is an oft discussed discussion in that scene as well.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid We are only talking about it now because you asked me if I though he had any. That's not at all what I was referring to when I first quoted you.

You know, it's much harder to bullshit, backtrack and flat out lie when your argument is written down for posterity. Your words when you first quoted me:

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Not everyone has the same idealistic views as you or what you claim to be the ideal of electronic music. That may have been the general consensus in its beginning, I don't know, but progress results from other means. Electronic dance music has evolved way beyond your black and white view that it is all about "disregarding of ideas of technical virtuosity."

So right from the start, you quoted one very specific thing I said and then incorrectly collated it with a different thing I said in another post replying to another member. You seem to think that when I made those three points about "idiot logic" they were all part of some grand attack on Theo Parrish and all had relevance to him, when actually they were a grand attack on idiots with temporal, contextless opinions about electronic music. I brought this up in a discussion about Theo Parrish because Mark Anthony said:

quote:

I think people graviate towards [Theo Parrish] in an era where everything is very tight

I've seen so many people on forums or in interviews say that modern music is "too quantized", "too tight" and thus consequently "sounds soulless". Again, the whole point is that sequenced electronic music has always sounded incredibly tight, and unless you're an aficionado of live unsequenced music who's just happened to wander onto an EDM forum it's fucking ludicrous to suddenly start complaining that things have become too tight, as if the stupidly minor difference between MIDI timing on hardware in the '80s and '90s and the timing on modern DAW's is where soul is lost and found.

The other points I made were similar examples of this bizarre logic formulated by people who started listening to dance music at a specific time, and through reasons of nostalgia have ossified certain preconceptions about how the music should be made and played (on hardware and on vinyl) and thus inadvertantly contradicted the ethos that brought their favourite music into existence in the first place. The larger point is that people seem to think electronic music has terminally declined and the reasons all have to do with the processes that make it - too computerised, too "easy", too "soulless". I think they are completely wrong. This is one of my "unpopular opinions on electronica, not giving a fuck", which the thread is about.

So again, this wasn't directly about Theo Parrish or his music at all, but rather a larger discourse that involves Parrish and that someone in this thread touched upon. Maybe Theo does think his music sounds more "soulful" for reverse-engineered looseness, but I don't know that and that's why I didn't say that. I did say that lots of people in the scene think that, which in my opinion is idiotic.

In conclusion, now I've absolutely spelled out my position in bright neon lights I have absolutely no interest in discussing Theo Parrish any further with you and I think you have nothing valuable to say about any of this, so can you please stop replying to my posts?

I tend to agree. I dislike the fact that many people today are making "throwback" music. To me EDM was always about moving forward, pushing the boundaries, the next thing. I don't think it's good that so many people try to replicate older music these days. That's not what EDM is about to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam420 I tend to agree. I dislike the fact that many people today are making "throwback" music. To me EDM was always about moving forward, pushing the boundaries, the next thing. I don't think it's good that so many people try to replicate older music these days. That's not what EDM is about to me.

Entirely fair.

Quoted, and interesting to me, because I feel exactly the opposite, with my only supporting argument being "because I like it."

Which also happens to be what the "dubstep" kids tell me.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.