|
Stimming Reflections Album (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Personally I think that any good music RA finds is incidental. The whole site is a joke of integrity to me. They sucked the of progressive until their teeth fell out, and now it's no longer popular, prog is derided there as "90s music". They put up a negative review of John Digweed then pull it down and replace it with a more positive one, causing several staff members to resign. Then they sit around on the forums talking about the technocratic spirituality of postmodern capitalist culture and how it's reflected in dull, dry techno.
Most of their top records of 2008 bored me to tears, and in another five years nobody will listen to them and nobody will care, just like nobody on RA talks up the same stuff they were throwing 5/5s at a few years ago. TA is different insofar as there's no front page of reviewers laying down an editorial policy that is reflected in the regulars. Most of us used to like trance and have moved on, all in different directions. There's no fad that unites us. |
I like this. Well said. |
|
|
| plaxx |
I like a few Stimming tracks, but I found the album to be quite boring. It seems as though Stimming has found this sound that worked well for him and I think he just isn't trying to do anything else.
A lot of people might be pissed off by this, but in a sense you can say Stimming is like Dubfire. They both have this sound that sells, and they keep hammering the out of it even though its old news. |
|
|
| Jasperovitsj |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
RA in this thread is brought up because of its forum users generally positive opinions about Stimming's album, while we have a rather hiveminded polar opposite opinion here at TA. I'm wondering if someone could give a decent analysis of this phenomenon. |
My analysis is that it's curious to see that you imply that the positive opinions on RA (which are not surprisingly the same as yours) are for some reason more valid than the negative opinions on TA, which you call hiveminded and polar. One could propose that it's the other way around, and that those of the RA crew are the hiveminded, polar opinions - and therefore inferior to TA's? Pretty arbitrary, no? |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
It's interesting that TA opinions/reviews vastly differ from the opinions elsewhere, like RA forum, about the same exact album. Definately entirely different cultures. Mostly positive about the album there, and mostly negative about the album here. Interesting phenomenon to me. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
RA their reviews, not so good, their features, interviews, and feed, are good, definately a good site overall. RA in this thread is brought up because of its forum users generally positive opinions about Stimming's album, while we have a rather hiveminded polar opposite opinion here at TA. I'm wondering if someone could give a decent analysis of this phenomenon. |
Aaaaaaand it's official:
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Kismet, you're becoming you are TA's newest laughingstock imbecile :gsmile: |
|
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not sure anyone in this thread is on the same page as you when it comes to how this track is "dynamic". I initially linked your meaning to one of movement, which apparently was wrong. By a dictionary definition a "dynamic" track would be characterised as energetic, forceful and so on. By a technical, musical definition we'd be talking about the relative use of volume in different parts of the track. What the are you getting at? I don't hear this track building to a crescendo, or being dramatically louder or quieter at certain points. I don't hear it using volume like a classical piece would. It's not the Rite Of Spring. If you aren't talking about the production, then I want to know what wonderful nuances your refined ear has found in the track that prevent it from being ing dull.
So please, enlighten all on this esoteric dynamism and why exactly anyone should think it is interesting.
Personally I think that any good music RA finds is incidental. The whole site is a joke of integrity to me. They sucked the of progressive until their teeth fell out, and now it's no longer popular, prog is derided there as "90s music". They put up a negative review of John Digweed then pull it down and replace it with a more positive one, causing several staff members to resign. Then they sit around on the forums talking about the technocratic spirituality of postmodern capitalist culture and how it's reflected in dull, dry techno.
Most of their top records of 2008 bored me to tears, and in another five years nobody will listen to them and nobody will care, just like nobody on RA talks up the same stuff they were throwing 5/5s at a few years ago. TA is different insofar as there's no front page of reviewers laying down an editorial policy that is reflected in the regulars. Most of us used to like trance and have moved on, all in different directions. There's no fad that unites us. |
I'm still bummed I got no lesson. I'll take the carrot stick off your head, now that i've drawn it out long enough that you had no clue and had to look it up. Here is the lesson, and its important to know this about music, because it is a big reason why you enjoy music. The definition did help you a bit, the lowering and raising of volumes is generally it. But in this track first of all he doesnt start with your usual, kick+snare or kick+clap, although this isnt a requirement to make dynamic electronic music, it does add to the dynamics over the course of the track, because he brings in the clap later on. The next thing is the melody and what he is doing with it,and the spacing that allows moments of just kick+clap, while the main melody weaves its way in and out of the main focus. It starts out deep and then opens up and gets louder and then towards the end it retreats back into the deep, this keeps the listener interested and entertained, the main melody and its spacing is dynamic in itself.
The breakdown he uses, it gets stripped of the kick and clap, but maintains its dynamic lead, which gradually disappears and is replaced by a atmospheric bubbly segment, so even though breakdown segments add dynamics to music by lowering the overall levels of a track, the breakdown itself has peak and trough in volume and energy, which he then builds back up gradually until the kick and clap drop in again, and then once they have dropped in he removes those elements just focusing on the kick clap percs, main lead and bass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQHz0QFuMyI (song for isabelle)
So it changes in volume and energy in many places throughout the track, and at the micro level his main melody is consistently dynamic. Now your probably saying "wait, aren't there a lot of dynamic pieces of music like this?". Yes of course, when I made the statement that this track is dynamic, It didn't mean that music is so rarely dynamic that I had to point it out here, its just that this is a very good example of dynamic electronic music, when a lot of techno is not, rather very normalized in volume and energy.
The lesson continues...the reason why people enjoy music so much is because of the dynamics, the rising and falling of elements within a track and the rising and falling of volume and energy. This is why classical music was so famous at its time, and why its still relevant today. Dynamics is one of the reasons why Trance is so famous worldwide, it has those long breakdowns where the volume and energy is changed and then has a buildup and full on energy, and the next track follows the same pattern, which makes the overall set dynamic and bearable.
Pop music also has its dynamics, through Verse, Chorus, Bridge and small breaks and percussion or string or brass fills in the music. Those were created because popular music requires dynamics to be popular, and its a big reason why people enjoy music. Backup singers are incorporated in pop music, because they add dynamics to the music by changing the main voice of the track. Another way Dynamics is added to Pop music is that they actually add energy or volume to a segment of the track, this adds dynamics, and then when that bridge is over, its back to the verse which has lesser volume and energy. This is dynamics. Besides the emotional and mental impact of music, now you should know that dynamics allows people to enjoy much of the music they listen to.
And to finish, i'll have you listen to a piece of GABBA music, yes GABBA, but hold on...not because it's a good piece of music to me, but this is a lesson and if you study the arrangement of the music, you will notice that there are more breaks and stops and fills than many other genres of music, why? Because there is so much normalized energy and volume during the busy sections that listening to that constant energy for so long will get tedious and hard to listen to, so to make it accessible to the listener and enjoyable to the listener they have tons of breaks that add dynamics to the music. We wonder why people listen to it, but it is the dynamics that make it listenable to the people who enjoy that type of energy in their music, without it, no one would listen to GABBA or any music with purely undynamic normalized volume and energy. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR9Ws61mwRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwusIuFHttg |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by plaxx
:rolleyes: |
Well, people keep asking me questions, and someone was going to give me a lesson on dynamics, a new dialogue opened, besides this isnt much about the album discussion, I am over that, I understand and unsurprisingly no one likes it here, quite a few people outside of TA are enjoying the album.
If you really have nothing to add, just find another thread to waste space in, because now were having a fruitful discussion about dynamics in music. |
|
|
| woscar |
 |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
|
Your not funny, nor smart, but indeed full of nerd fail. So let the grown ups in this thread handle their discussion. |
|
|
| Push2005 |
| :stongue: awesome pic |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | | So it changes in volume and energy in many places throughout the track, and at the micro level his main melody is consistently dynamic. |
I don't think anyone is going to argue with this. The difference is you seem to have an eargasm over it, whereas it's simply dub effects and textures to a laid-back house beat for others. Why you think it's brilliant, I haven't the foggiest -Isabelle is making use of the same kind of dub effects that have been in use for decades. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
I don't think anyone is going to argue with this. The difference is you seem to have an eargasm over it, whereas it's simply dub effects and textures to a laid-back house beat for others. Why you think it's brilliant, I haven't the foggiest -Isabelle is making use of the same kind of dub effects that have been in use for decades. |
I don't think anyone said it is brilliant, if you can quote the person, go ahead, someone did say it is a good piece of dynamic music. And then someone said it is not dynamic and that the person who said it is dynamic needs a lesson, and then the person that needed a lesson, ended up giving the lesson on what is dynamic. I understand, the album sucks according to TA's exquisite taste lol. We're discussing dynamics in music now. |
|
|
|
|
