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

That reminds me of the documentary 'Pump Up The Volume' where Phuture talks about Ron Hardy playing Acid Tracks four times in a night before the crowd went for it


my personal viewpoint is - people are pussies now, the crowd, the deejays, the promoters, everyone.

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?

___________________
"All revolutions are the sheerest fantasies until they happen; then they become historical inevitabilities."

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.

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'

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'

Absolutely, but that's what I see as Kandinsky's first necessity. Being peculiar, ie being honest with both the Other and oneself. Snobs artists almost always fail to make heart-wrenching art, or simply enjoyable music, painting, etc. because they prefer to go directly to the 3rd necessity: "art in general". The guy in "American Beauty" shooting a plastic bag touches a beautiful mystery because he makes the effort to feel it. It's an unceasing exchange between a spiritual reality and the outside world.

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.

thank you, that is exactly the point i was trying to make that was lost on bas (at no fault to him, i dont explain things perfectly all the time). dance music needs to go back to being music. the core principles of what makes dance music work is being lost on people that jump right into the advanced stuff. whats happening is there is an unbalance in the universe of good vs evil: there is too much underground music and not enough good vocal content or good substance to balance it.

re: dj'ing general populace ... it is a challenge isnt it? its something i think all minimal/tech/trance/house/dnb/etc djs need to do once in a while. you end up learning A LOT about the actual art of dj'ing you never knew existed, and those lessons transfer to your preferred format and make you that much of a better dj for your preferred format.

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

yeah but a lot in that indie dance genre actually use drums and guitars, like the faint for example. chromeo actually has guitar strumming. part of its success is not just the idea of fusion of electronic dance with traditional rock, but also probably because of the physicality from hard manual labor like hitting a drum or strumming riffs. that physicality is what many producers try hard to simulate to prevent their work from sounding too synthetic and lack of soul. years ago edm was bred from normal music, but nowadays edm is bred from previous edm, it needs to be "reset".

Last edited by stevësto on Aug-19-2008 at 14:04

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 .

___________________
"Well son, a funny thing about regret is:
It's better to regret something you have done rather than something you didn't"