|
All the cheap bashing on mainstream trance... (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
This is the real minimal unicorn!
:mad: :D |
That's actually the industrial unicorn. :thepirate |
|
|
| Noisician |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
That's actually the industrial unicorn. :thepirate |
wrong! this is the industrial unicorn:
 |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
PETRAN, try to track down these papers if you can:
they have more of a basis in social anthropology, but there is some cogpsych in there as well
Needham, Rodney. Percussion and Transition. Man, Vol 2. No 4. (Dec 1967) pp 606-614
Tuzin, Donald. Miraculous Voices: The Auditory Experience of Numinous Objects. Current Anthropology. Vol 25. No 5. (Dec 1984) pp 579-596 |
Thanks nefardec, i'll check them out ASAP!:thepirate
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
just wanted to post this
this is my euphoric jam
|
And how do we know this is not your twin brother? :p
But nice track! Is it really from 1991? Very futuristic
Is this Kraftwerk- We Are The Robots towards the end? It made me rush to my kraftwerk cds lol |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Noisician
wrong! this is the industrial unicorn:
|
unirobocentaurocopcorn |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
unirobocentaurocopcorn |
Hahaha
But it says "detroit"... lol |
|
|
| Noisician |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Hahaha
But it says "detroit"... lol |
bwahaha, that's too bad. detroit techno is even deader than its unicorns:
 |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Noisician
you should really make that the topic of your thesis then. see if you can convince them your theory is sound (oh and send me a copy, kthnxbye).
that is fine, but why should it be a universal pattern though? if you took a simple piece and played one part of it in one key immediately followed by that same part in a different key, wouldn't that produce a similar effect? does complexity matter?
yeah, i mistyped that part by accident. my apologies. i meant to say that the musical complexity is the independent variable.
i have yet to see some evidence that a complex piece would necessarily evoke a greater number of emotions (no matter their extremity). this is the part (the only part!) that i'm skeptical about. i am not concerned over the intensity of said emotions. all i'm asking is what data there is to support the view that musical complexity and emotional complexity are correlated in the first place. |
Haha i found some similar evidence for visual aesthetics! Well, i remember reading it somewhere once but now i found it randomly on the net. Although i can't see any sources i have red these stuff in the past.
http://www.androidblues.com/visualperception.html
To tell you the truth, what i say i thought it was common sense lol. I can't understand how it sounds a bit weird. Maybe someone finds difficult the word "complexity". By complexity i don't necessarily mean complexity at the "vertical" level (like the number of organs playing at the same time) although it could also contribute to the final result/ be a part of overall "complexity". I also mean complexity at the "horizontal" level, like the number of notes or rhythmical changes/changes in tempo etc. Like if you have 5 notes in a 5 sec. segment and 2 notes in a 5 sec. segment the first one is more complicated than the second one. The article that i posted says it better. "Variation". You can substitute the word "complexity" (if it confuses you) with "variation", in both sound and emotion. 5 notes is a more varied segment than a 2-note one and hence has a higher chance to "suggest" a higher emotional variation than a 2-note auditory segment. Ofcourse this wouldn't necessarily mean that the first one is more "enjoyable" than the second one. Because for a hundred reasons i can think off, one can like those two specific notes better than the five ones.
The link i posted has something similar for vision. Look at the two pictures of Christian Bale. The right one is more complicated than the left one. The article says that this is the reason it is perceived as "more interesting". It could be but the left-one (the simpler/more minimal one) could look more enjoyable to someone (for whatever reason).
As you say emotion is not a pre-requisite of enjoyment. But it surely can make things interesting, if one is willing to pay the "extra attention" that is needed for the higher complexity. Still, one could take a higher enjoyment from simpler things. I never said that listening to more complex things is necessarily "better". But you can't deny the fact that humanity always praises the more "complex/varied" stuff as greater pieces of art. They usually need more effort to both be perceived and made as well ;) |
|
|
| Noisician |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
To tell you the truth, what i say i thought it was common sense lol. I can't understand how it sounds a bit weird. Maybe someone finds difficult the word "complexity". By complexity i don't necessarily mean complexity at the "vertical" level (like the number of organs playing at the same time) although it could also contribute to the final result/ be a part of overall "complexity". I also mean complexity at the "horizontal" level, like the number of notes or rhythmical changes/changes in tempo etc. [...] |
well there you go! you're not really talking about complexity as such, you're refering to alteration, change within a given piece. a jazz composition can be incredibly complex structurally and yet exhibit very little variation. likewise ravel's boléro is a piece that was meant to be performed by a large orchestra with virtually zero variation throughout. similarly, "horizontal complexity" on its own does not necessitate variation either so long as it does not result in a change in tonality or key. if that's what you mean, then i agree with you. completely.
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
As you say emotion is not a pre-requisite of enjoyment. But it surely can make things interesting, if one is willing to pay the "extra attention" that is needed for the higher complexity. Still, one could take a higher enjoyment from simpler things. I never said that listening to more complex things is necessarily "better". But you can't deny the fact that humanity always praises the more "complex/varied" stuff as greater pieces of art. They usually need more effort to both be perceived and made as well ;) |
that's true, yes. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Noisician
well there you go! you're not really talking about complexity as such, you're refering to alteration, change within a given piece. a jazz composition can be incredibly complex structurally and yet exhibit very little variation. likewise ravel's boléro is a piece that was meant to be performed by a large orchestra with virtually zero variation throughout. similarly, "horizontal complexity" on its own does not necessitate variation either so long as it does not result in a change in tonality or key. if that's what you mean, then i agree with you. completely.
that's true, yes. |
Ah i knew that we would agree in the end lol.
I pretty much thought that complexity equals variation and/or "alteration" as you say, at least in music. I mean a jazz piece would inevitably have a lot of variation (if you pay attention) not? (like you are not possibly going to find repetition) How else can you say that something is complex?
I knew that the word "complex" would be confusing...(in a complicated way...lol) |
|
|
| palm |
| that universal nation remix was actualy brutaly phatt (the new baseline fitted the melody great). phatt |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by FCB_Fanatic
eeeuhm ... you're talking about music from more than a decade ago !!! Well that's absolutely not what I'm talking about (you'd better read my first post!). I think you're not really up-to-date about the current state of music in Belgium. I am really talking about how the situation is in Belgium at the moment ... more specificaly about jumpstyle in this case !!!
for starters, I'm 27 years old and well aware of those two tracks you posted up there! I don't think anyone in Belgium would call them Jump. These two tracks are from half way the '90 ... jumpstyle only started in Belgium at the end of the '90 (with Da Boy Tommy and Da Rick). It evolved, got more popular and reached its peak in +/- 2005-2006 (just an estimation from my part). It became really popular after that, 10 year old kids started to jump at school, playgrounds ... (as I explained earlier) and music was released specifically targeted at these kids (kidies' songs updated with a jump beat / clap). It became a commercial hype!
Off course the die-hard fans didn't like this at all :D ... their once so cool style was turned into a Laughing-stock. At the moment jumpstyle isn't as large as it was a couple of years ago, but you can still go to certain clubs where they play it (e.g Complex). Here you have a vid:
|
Yes, even more than a decade ago actually (Cherry Moon trax 1 - The house of house 1994 no link needed I guess). That's why I asked your age. When you would be 20 you wouldn't know much of back then. When I saw Jumpstyle first in Holland, a few years ago, some friends and I had something like..."Huuuuhh, we have seen that before." Now that I know it started in Belgium, which I didn't, it even makes sense.
We have seen similar jumping in Belgium, eg in The Real in Tongeren. Although then the music was different and the jumping probably even didn't have a name, this may have been the roots for Jumpstyle. If you look at the Bonzai Jumps releases you can also see this was much harder than the Bonzai Classic stuff, so probably they guys I have seen dancing normally would listen and dance at the harder stuff like Thunderball. The Dutch probably just gave it a boost as apparently it has been around in Belgium for about a decade.
I actually don't like Jumpstyle, but don't mind that teenagers have fun with it. I have been young too... |
|
|
|
|
