|
Musical preferance and IQ (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Aquarian |
Time signatures aren't the only thing that makes music complex. Layers of simple elements make something complex. In that sense, Dance music is generally some of the most complex music I've ever heard, beat only by Jazz (generally speaking). You can just look at the ammount of elements and partitions present in a track. In a rock band you'd have something like two guitars, a singer, a drummer... 4 or 5 partitions total. In a trance track you could have anywhere from 20 to a hundred.
Anyways - as for the IQ thing, it's complete bull. Not only is IQ not really a good measure of anything to begin with, I really doubt anyone would have any credible research data that could correlate something like musical taste to IQ. There's just way too many factors in play; acessibility, exposure, culture, social context, economic context, you name it. |
|
|
| Dark^Tremor |
didn't you just read where he stated why busy harmonies don't make it complex? jeez.
BUT NO NO IT DOEZNT, HERE'S FIVE OF MY FAVORIT TARNCE AN PORGRESSSIVE ARTISTS WHOM MAKE MUZAK WITH BUSY HARMONIES HENCE ARE COMPLEX! |
|
|
| vinnie97 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
yeah yeah yeah, I know. I have some music in triplet timing. But that's just a small sliver of the edm spectrum as to be negligent.
And let's be realistic here: ed up IDM or downtempo music set to bizzare time signatures isn't what the poster was getting at, was he? |
Hell if I know, I won't claim to know of the entirety of his original intentions.
And to that other poster who mentioned BT/Chicane: If you're going to make mention of them as putting more effort into music-making in the realm of dance music, then you have to mention Way Out West as well, whose music has crossed several sub-genres of dance music and they've done it (and still do) with a grace and talent at least on a level comparable to the above two.
However, all of the above artists have been guilty of loop-based works and sticking to the 4/4 time signature completely...but I don't think that makes them unintelligent, just more approachable and more listenable. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by vinnie97
And to that other poster who mentioned BT/Chicane: If you're going to make mention of them as putting more effort into music-making in the realm of dance music, then you have to mention Way Out West as well, whose music has crossed several sub-genres of dance music and they've done it (and still do) with a grace and talent at least on a level comparable to the above two.
|
Yeah WOW too. I deleted my post because I knew it was going to turn into a flame fest/argument as people misinterpret and twist what I say on here all the time (don't like to deal with it). A lot of the artist that have put more emphasis on compositions based around albums, and not based around just singles, are what I was talking about. But the other artists have potential too, those who don't put emphasis on albums, but just release singles. Maybe "complex" isn't exactly the right word, but they are certaintly more sophisticated and in some instances "complex" then some of the other dance music out there... |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | | If you want complex music, you would try for really odd or bizarre time signatures like 9/13 (Zappa was a master of this), and really avant-garde scales like Archytas' Enharmonic 8-tone scale or the 19-equal scale or Harry Partch's really ed up 43-tone scale, which sounds practically atonal to the western ear trained to the standard 12-tone scale, and completely out of sync if you try to count the measures in multiples of 4. |
If you're trying to suggest that a piece of music like Take 5 is more complex than a tune like Underworld - Spikee, you realy need to check your definition of complex. A song can have a novel time signature, but if the time is the only point of the song, then it's just that: novelty.
As to whether it's more sophisticated or not, I suppose that's really up to the listener anyway, in which case, the OP's point kind of makes sense. A person's taste in music is somewhat related to their personality, or at least what they view as sophisticated and if they care whether they're sohpisticated or not. A person can think themself sophisticated for listening to Wilco, or Sasha, or Richie Hawtin, or 65 Days of Static, for all I care. Are they sophisticated? Maybe, maybe not. Then again, there are people (*cough*Ishkur*cough*) who think they're even more sophisticated because they've realized that music doesn't make you sophisticated, and so tout their tastes in ty music to show that it really doesn't matter to them. There are also the people that genuinely don't care and listen to whatever the radio plays for them. They may be the most sophisticated of us all; after all, they're not arguing about this bull on the internet. |
|
|
| cherrybarry |
| and so they lived...happily ever after |
|
|
| *InVeRs3* |
It's funny how these tests never show the numbers. I bet you the points are either above or below 5, that's not really a big gap in intelligence.
I personally think IQ tests don't work. They're culturally biased, and the human brain is complex.
And I also agree on what thoughtless has said. |
|
|
| epdarks |
Orchestral has us owned as far as complexity. Plus they actually have to play , on time, in tune. I personally would argue it takes the most intellegence to comprehend/write/play.
I like to think of trance as orchestral for the digital generation, which is both good and bad.
Or maybe I'm on crack. Good thread though. |
|
|
| lex400sc |
| i agree that classical/orchestral/symphonic is the most complex of all music. it has one important aspect that electronic lacks: the acoustic imaging and staging of a hundred analog instruments which deliver nuance that give $100,000 speakers a reason to exist. |
|
|
| Ishkur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
Layers of simple elements make something complex. |
No they don't. Key changes and melodic drift create complex melodies. But none of that is found in trance, which generally only uses one key/melody which loops every 8-16 bars, 64 times. In other words: The melodic drift never evolves beyond a simplified, predictable pattern. That's not complexity, that is the musical equivalent of a Dick & Jane primer to english literature. See Dick Run. Run Dick run. Jane sees Dick run.
You want complex harmonies and melodic key changes, go listen to classical music. |
|
|
| Ishkur |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
A song can have a novel time signature, but if the time is the only point of the song, then it's just that: novelty.
|
I never said that an avant-garde time signature is the only way to make complex music, but it's a good start.
My beef was only with the OP who insisted that his loop-and-sample-based music was more sophisticated than other people's loop-and-sample-based music. Which is wrong, not to mention stupid. |
|
|
|
|
