|
Gabriel & Dresden (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| darkSIde |
And this is why your a world known Dj who has threads created about him?
Everyones an expert these days. I like G&D , they might not be the most complicated music but sometimes simplicity is the best. |
|
|
| AngusG |
| quote: | Originally posted by starstarman
How do you define their progression being "extremely good" then? 90% of the melody is in major key, ok there's nth wrong with major but the progression is almost repeatedly going thru a perfect cadence or even staying on the I. That is good? And lately their bassline is even more horrid. Just exactly a simple square pulse in low pass. |
actually not true... the most gabriel and dresden productions and remixes i've listened to (and had a long think before replying) have been in a minor key... and call me stupid... but the bassline in a lot of quality dance music is based on a similar formula...
bit of trivia... Josh Gabriel played an two stringed electric bass on Arcadia and Around You (from memory)...
and as for progression?? i think their productions progress very nicely |
|
|
| Col |
| quote: | Originally posted by starstarman
I dunno if you have taken any musical education. There are a lot of theories behind, in any criteria like melodic progression, harmonic progression, emotional expression, etc. And there are other studio technics, history knowledge, producing skills, etc. that can be discussed and commented. |
True.
Musical merit and originality doesn't seem to matter to some people, as long as they like it then it should be allowed to be considered "good music". Obviously I'm not trying to claim liking a type of music isn't subjective or a matter of taste, but I'm afraid some music just IS objectively poor.
"Opinion" carries no weight in these cases, people just throw the word around to excuse their own ignorance. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Technical merit is not a reliable method of valuing music. There are post-rock musicians out there who play incredibly technical guitar solos, but the end product sounds like arse, often because they have been so ridiculously self-indulgent in their attempt to make complex music for its own sake.
I believe in what The KLF said when they wrote The Manual. A song can be the most derivative trash in the world, but if the charisma and personality of the person behind it are sound, then the record will sound great simply because of their influence. Hence they could make a cheesey sample-collage like Doctorin' The Tardis sound so good.
To me, great music is about creativity. An incredibly competent but desperately uncreative musician will sound dull. So really, whether or not G&D are any good has less to do with the technical complexity of their music and more to do with how good the art they construct is. So you can't objectively decide that they are bad artists based on how good musicians they are- you can only justify why their artistic expression does not appeal to you.
All that said, I don't especially like G&D. |
|
|
| Col |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
To me, great music is about creativity. An incredibly competent but desperately uncreative musician will sound dull. So really, whether or not G&D are any good has less to do with the technical complexity of their music and more to do with how good the art they construct is. So you can't objectively decide that they are bad artists based on how good musicians they are- you can only justify why their artistic expression does not appeal to you. |
I'd agree with that. Be aware that by "musical merit and originality" I didn't necessarily mean technical aspects, I just meant musical aspects.
Their productions seem to me to be very dull and simple - and I don't mean simple as in artistic and minimal; I mean simple as in that they don't spend enough time on them and that they are not fulfilling and creative enough to be considered decent pieces of music. |
|
|
| FiK |
| quote: | Originally posted by Col
I'd agree with that. Be aware that by "musical merit and originality" I didn't necessarily mean technical aspects, I just meant musical aspects.
Their productions seem to me to be very dull and simple - and I don't mean simple as in artistic and minimal; I mean simple as in that they don't spend enough time on them and that they are not fulfilling and creative enough to be considered decent pieces of music. |
that is true for a few of their productions, but they do churn out so many a few are bound to be like that, whether or not they should focus more on a few productions a year is up to them i spose.
Tracks like As the rush comes, Arcadia and remixes of no one on earth and Swing 2 Harmony tho, honestly especially their own 2 productions imo are unbelievable tracks, with great progression, awesome breakdowns and then build ups...
anyway i can understand how some would say that some of their stuff can be boring, but i dont know too many songs out there like AS the Rush Comes |
|
|
| AngusG |
i didn't like gabriel and dresden's remix of no one on earth... i really prefer sonoraus remix.... though gabriel and dresden and above and beyond both dropped it when they were out here and i enjoyed :)
g&d's remix swing 2 harmony was my fav track of '05 though...
edit: I just realised u were in aus... was gk just awesome?? |
|
|
| FiK |
| quote: | Originally posted by AngusG
edit: I just realised u were in aus... was gk just awesome?? |
omg it was the best!!
i went through like, post GK depression for a few weeks the night was so good :p
G & D started off great, then BT blew the roof off and above and beyond finishing was crazy.:eyes: :eyes:
Best night of my life so far music wise - Bring on Two Tribes! :D |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
| Nicol Spomberg - Resurrection (G&D Remix) <--- most underrated G&D track EVER! |
|
|
| peterdjsgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitranceman
Nicol Spomberg - Resurrection (G&D Remix) <--- most underrated G&D track EVER! |
a personal favorite
on another note... I've been reading and thinking about some of the stuff being said... especially about the "musical talent" etc ... My 2 cents- and this can be applied to any music or musician, why are they doing what they are doing? Is the point to create a technically perfect peice of music for the sake of following the rules, or is the point to try and capture an emotion or idea that people will understand and, in this case, want to dance to. I enjoy Gabriel & Dresden, and personally I am very ok that they are not everyones "cup of tea". I just disagree that they are lacking in the area of musical expertise. I really think it's more that some people don't enjoy how they have chosen to write, produce or remix the music. (fyi-I have had musical training, my husband is a musician and I have friends that are accomplished musicians... and not just in the dance music genre) |
|
|
| Col |
| quote: | Originally posted by peterdjsgirl
My 2 cents- and this can be applied to any music or musician, why are they doing what they are doing? Is the point to create a technically perfect peice of music for the sake of following the rules, or is the point to try and capture an emotion or idea that people will understand and, in this case, want to dance to. |
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument - people will "want to dance" to any old cheese, providing it's catchy and has a basic rhythm. Crediting someone for making a dance track danceable is like crediting someone for baking a cake that's edible. It's what you do on top of the basic principles which distinguishes one producer from another.
As for "capturing an emotion", that phrase in itself is touch-and-go, and I could say the same for quite a few artists. In that recent review of Markus Schulz's album on trancecritic.com, the reviewer used the phrase "faux-emotional trappings" which I think could be applied to G&D as well. People only regard it "emotional" because there are pretty vocals and twinkling guitars. That's not really raw emotion; it's forced, the listener is drowned in the stuff, with an extra helping on top to make sure they're won over.
And in response to your comments on music theory, I would agree that no-one should entirely abide by "rules" - that's what makes music boring. But you're missing the point of music theory. Once you are aware of the principles of music, you go out to expand upon or completely invert those principles, that's how you get to be considered creative. It almost sounded like you're saying people with any knowledge of music theory are MORE likely to create formulaic pieces and abide by rules, which really isn't the case at all.
Besides, I can't claim to know (and really couldn't care less) the extent of G&D's knowledge of music theory, and I don't think it matters much with this kind of music. But I still feel they aren't creative enough - they're trying to mix genres in an attempt to be original, and when one of those genres is "pop" then you're set out to fail from day one. |
|
|
| peterdjsgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Col
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument - people will "want to dance" to any old cheese, providing it's catchy and has a basic rhythm. Crediting someone for making a dance track danceable is like crediting someone for baking a cake that's edible. It's what you do on top of the basic principles which distinguishes one producer from another.
|
Agreed, though not everyone falls into that catagory ;) (as fas dancing to anything)
On the emotion thing.... also somewhat agreed, but I don't feel that they always fall into that catagory, I enjoy some of the simplicicty and combinations in the tracks they produce. I paint and every once in awhile someone will produce a track I can paint to, it's a personal thing , but they have produced a couple of tracks that really get me there emotionally... Once again I think we are back to the individual ear thing. Even those of us that are picky in what we listen to, (and I most definatley fall into this catagory!!), have a variety of tastes and opinions... hurray for diversity.
:) |
|
|
|
|
