|
Musical preferance and IQ (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Col |
| At the end of the day, the guy didn't ask whether or not trance was complex, he just asked if there was a correlation between IQ and trance. |
|
|
| Dark^Tremor |
| yah, i'm sure he'd cite the reason why he thinks IQ and trance might be related is that he thinks it's so minimal with no melodies and like two or three sounds in the entire track compared to the rest of dance music. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
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. |
Funny that I generally don't like classical music so much because I find it too simplistic.
Yes key changes add complexity, but so do layers, and everything else that's in there. If you take a bunch of those basic 2x8 lego blocks and you build a city with it, it's still a complex work. Perhaps more complex than a single house built with those tiny and curvy blocks. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
If all this music is stupid simple poppy dance music, then why all the hostility towards tiesto and corsten and the other superstar dj's? What's the big deal about enjoying pop music? We sure talk seriously about this stuff for it being a bunch of silly beats and loops. What difference does it make if its trance or house or prog if it is all silly 4/4 and loops music?
I've read so many of ishkur's parrots insist that all trance fans must be ignorant of better music or that listening to trance means a person is dumb, and I've heard the whole "trance takes itself too seriously" bit plenty of times as well, it all seems a bit hypocritical to me.
If you listen to that above and beyond show it is really easy to tell they dont take themselves seriously, that girl annoucer voice says stuff like "trance around the world, music, fun, and stupid comments!" and they are always giggling when they say stuff. To me it seems everybody needs to lighten up and just accept the fact that they found some pop music that they enjoy. |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | | No they don't. Key changes and melodic drift create complex melodies. |
This is what I'm talking about. You have no idea what you're saying. You're talking about a dynamic melody: one that changes a lot, and frankly, that's not a sign of complexity unless you're a total simpleton. Really, it is hard to call any melody complex unless you include harmony, counterpoint, etc. Things that trance has employed in the past and continues to employ to this day.
This is because complexity involves multiple interweaving elements, simple or otherwise. This is why I asked you to compare Spikee to Take 5. Not only does Spikee have more simultaneous layers, but it explores the same amount of melodic themes, at least. Spikee is, by far, more complex. |
|
|
| PlasticSoul |
so there are not artists that makes more "complex" and less repetitive in electronic music?
for example:
orbital
autechre
boards of canada
some bt's
vangelis
jmjarre
brian eno
excuse my ignorance...
I think the important thing is the feeling that a song can do emerge in our minds...
for example, u think a track is melancholic, other is euforic, other is more "dark"... isnot this a form of complexity?
:) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Complex
1.
a. Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite.
b. Composed of two or more units: a complex carbohydrate.
2. Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.
Repetitivity isn't particularly important to complexity. Complexity means that up there ^^^. Something made up of many parts that fit together intricately. Thus, trance may not employ complex melodies but it is often a complex entity. |
|
|
| Kaveh |
Well said Ishkur.
Trance music is NOT complex (well yeah, that depends on how you define complexity). And some people in this thread seem to think 'complex' equals 'good'. I, and probably many others, like EDM because of other reasons than complexity.
I produce trance and play classical music on the violin, and there's no question for me which of the two genres that is the more complex one. |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | | I produce trance and play classical music on the violin, and there's no question for me which of the two genres that is the more complex one. |
There is no doubt in my mind that performing classical violin is more complex a procedure than performing trance (lets face it, live sequencing is much simpler than playing every note personally for 11 minutes straight), but just because it is more difficult for the performer does not make the piece inherently more complex for the listener. I know many people in this thread lump performer and listener together, but the fact is that the musical experience is very different for both parties.
| quote: | | And some people in this thread seem to think 'complex' equals 'good'. |
Tell me where someone directly says that. You are inferring a logical fallacy to aid your argument by working me into a semantic corner and I have no time for that. Stick to the topic, please.
| quote: | | 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. |
Indeed, and I adressed that point in concurrence with your claims, I believe. I took issue entirely with the assertion that unconventional time or key signatures have anything to do with complexity. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
oh, there is loads of complex electronic music, just that it isn't often dancable. You can get into things like compositional algorithms, novell approaches to synthesis, physical models, psychoacoustic tricks, or even literey type things like theatrical performances, symbolism, coded messages, etc if your looking for something "intelligent", but even your intelligent composers will tell you(some have said things like this to me) that pursuing such things is a kind of "penis envy"(he actually said that). Training yourself to hear some algorithm or appreciate some weird rythm and melody is just another pointless elitist dick measuring contest. Just like what you like and be who you are and you'll be much happier.
Layered sounds are just one of those silly elitists things, "ooooh I can do lotsa weighted sums on a bunch of sound waves, I'm so ubar smart, yarrrrrr!"
There is no shame in enjoying something simple, or something that is not a major challenge to perform. Even when you go to a jazz concert, the crowd claps during the simple parts and kinda sits there confused and silent when things are complicated. We love the pop music, it remains pop music regardless of the fact that clearchannel and MTV aren't whoring it.
Why not look back in history for a fun example of the futility in pursuing "intelligent" music. A good example is serialism, try and understand all the complexities of that stuff, then read about what John Cage and/or Ianis Xenakis did in response to that.
Music has no correlation to intelligence at all, intelligence is more closely related to things like genetics, curiosity and access to education. |
|
|
| weymouth |
| l:stongue: I find it hilarious he misspelled preference when talking about music and IQ. Sorry to be the spelling naxi but it's funny. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by weymouth
l:stongue: I find it hilarious he misspelled preference when talking about music and IQ. Sorry to be the spelling naxi but it's funny. |
Oh and you misspelled "nazi", it's NAZI not "naxi" so now i'm being the spelling nazi..i mean naxi...:p |
|
|
|
|
