Originally posted by Kismet7
right, it does'nt exist in name, I know you love semantics, but there is a structure to much of the 'purist techno', or at least a difference in structure to 'progressive' structured music. And if there wasn'nt, you would'nt be using the title 'purist techno' as a comparison to or argument against 'progressive' throughout this thread.
Maybe you should define 'purist techno', because you've been using it to share your gripes against 'progressive'.
sure. purist techno is purely rhythmic, vertically (layered) composed, with the musical structure reduced to a repeated rhythmic unit which evolves through the addition and subtraction of layers.
as i said, the entire 'concept' of structure is different in purist techno than progressive, so it doesn't make so much sense to compare it.
essentially what it comes down to is a matter of taste.
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
sure. purist techno is purely rhythmic, vertically (layered) composed, with the musical structure reduced to a repeated rhythmic unit which evolves through the addition and subtraction of layers.
as i said, the entire 'concept' of structure is different in purist techno than progressive, so it doesn't make so much sense to compare it.
essentially what it comes down to is a matter of taste.
Exactly. Part of the debate, well at least your side has been about personal taste, rather than actual observation and analysis between progressive structure and purist techno. You tried to at times, but it often went back to your taste and ideals. I mean if you want to bash progressive structured music based on your own personal taste, thats fine, but dont make cases that dont objectively look at the structure itself, its purpose, intention, potential, the abilities required by the artist to write music. Especially when the structure of music you champion is many times the outcome of a lack of musical and songwriting skill. And a product of what machines can spit out with a few movements of the hand. Well done 'progressive' structured music requires strong compositional, arrangement, songwriting skills, control and vision. 'Purist Techno', albeit great music when it is great, can be made on accident, without intent, using aimless swings. Of course this still can lead to great music, but this sort of music making or expression is not as easily possible in well made 'progressive structure' based music. When the accidental creation occurs in 'prog x', you get '' as the Brits say.
So if the debate is about structure, when it comes to songwriting, progressive structure and the structures we can extract from 'purist techno', as a musician, to me that well made 'progressive structure' is a bit more harder to pull off. Progressive structure can encompass more ideas, concepts, emotions, dynamics, feelings...and create versatile experiences, compared to a limited 'purist techno' structure in your definition. Anything pure is limited by its purity...naturally.
quote:
purist techno is purely rhythmic, vertically (layered) composed, with the musical structure reduced to a repeated rhythmic unit which evolves through the addition and subtraction of layers.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by wotyzoid
Pshh, spare me.
I will do when you learn to read and don't spectacularly miss the ing point.
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
i'm pretty sure namedropping chicago and detroit has been going on in club culture since the 80s.
i'm not sure what you were intending to say with your post - were you trying to flame me or just vent? i ask because I completely agree with your frustration and critical sentiment about cyclical bloated scenism
I'm not flaming you, I'm venting about the same thing you are when you say most producers buy a Miles Davis album and pretend to have listened to jazz since 1976, when it reality they were listening to Paul Van Dyk a few years ago and don't want to admit their influences. Chicago and Detroit are like that Miles Davis album. Tokenism to score points and to excuse crimes.
couch-potato
I'm not familiar with the concepts and differences between vertically and horizontally layered compositions. I'll see what I can find from Google but if I could get samples or even just track titles exhibiting the two I can do the rest of the research myself.
Thanks in advance :toocool:
SYSTEM-J
I'm not sure there is any textbook definition of this. It's something I invented in my head as a way of thinking about music, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Imagine your track laid out in a DAW. The number of musical elements stacked up in the channels is the track's vertical layout, and the track stretching out across the screen in a timeline is the horizontal layout. Obviously, every track ever made that is more than one instrument has both of these pseudo-spacial dimensions. But when I think of vertically or horizontally arranged music, I think about which dimension is primary in creating effect.
House music is generally very vertical, because it consists of a lot of short, simple, repetitive loops of sound, none of which are massively effective when played on their own. The effect comes from how these elements stack up to create a polyphonic, addictive groove.
Rock music is usually much more horizontal, because there aren't many sounds at once (bass, guitar, vocals, drums) and it tends to emphasise longer melodies, chord progressions and solos, where the effect mainly comes from how the note or chord relates to what came before it.
I think the point nefardec is making is that horizontally orientated music works across the passage of the time, and so has that feeling of a narrative unfolding. When you listen to a progressive house record with a big sweeping chord progression it feels "cinematic" because cinematic music tends to use drawn-out strings and progressions to sonically accentuate that feeling of narrative. And yet progressive house still has elements of vertically stacked groove operating underneath, which is what nefardec means by a "dilution". The groove is still there, but it is not the focus of the track's attention, and the epic, cinematic stretched-out qualities of prog are also reigned in compared to, say, epic trance which has no groove whatsoever and is obsessed with ultra-drawn out melodies.
I think the trance breakdown with one instrument playing out a never-ending and asinine melody ripped from 19th Century classical music is the ultimate in "horizontal" fixation, and the reason why epic trance becomes a unicorns and rainbows caricature of panoramic evocation. It's so utterly overblown in its horizontal suggestion of epic narrative that it brings to mind awful escapist fantasy fiction filled with clichéd imagery of picturesque mountains and forests and deserts. Which, incidentally, is probably why Youtube trance videos tend to use photos of such scenery.
Redd
I see he thanked you in advance, so no need for that.
NourYega
yes
SYSTEM-J
Some examples:
Extremely horizontal over-reaching trance:
Vertical - very simple and repetitive elements that stack up to create an addictive groove:
Prog:
couch-potato
quote:
Originally posted by Redd
I see he thanked you in advance, so no need for that.
:toothless
Thanks Jack
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not sure there is any textbook definition of this. It's something I invented in my head as a way of thinking about music, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Imagine your track laid out in a DAW. The number of musical elements stacked up in the channels is the track's vertical layout, and the track stretching out across the screen in a timeline is the horizontal layout. Obviously, every track ever made that is more than one instrument has both of these pseudo-spacial dimensions. But when I think of vertically or horizontally arranged music, I think about which dimension is primary in creating effect.
House music is generally very vertical, because it consists of a lot of short, simple, repetitive loops of sound, none of which are massively effective when played on their own. The effect comes from how these elements stack up to create a polyphonic, addictive groove.
Rock music is usually much more horizontal, because there aren't many sounds at once (bass, guitar, vocals, drums) and it tends to emphasise longer melodies, chord progressions and solos, where the effect mainly comes from how the note or chord relates to what came before it.
I think the point nefardec is making is that horizontally orientated music works across the passage of the time, and so has that feeling of a narrative unfolding. When you listen to a progressive house record with a big sweeping chord progression it feels "cinematic" because cinematic music tends to use drawn-out strings and progressions to sonically accentuate that feeling of narrative. And yet progressive house still has elements of vertically stacked groove operating underneath, which is what nefardec means by a "dilution". The groove is still there, but it is not the focus of the track's attention, and the epic, cinematic stretched-out qualities of prog are also reigned in compared to, say, epic trance which has no groove whatsoever and is obsessed with ultra-drawn out melodies.
I think the trance breakdown with one instrument playing out a never-ending and asinine melody ripped from 19th Century classical music is the ultimate in "horizontal" fixation, and the reason why epic trance becomes a unicorns and rainbows caricature of panoramic evocation. It's so utterly overblown in its horizontal suggestion of epic narrative that it brings to mind awful escapist fantasy fiction filled with clichéd imagery of picturesque mountains and forests and deserts. Which, incidentally, is probably why Youtube trance videos tend to use photos of such scenery.
When all is lost...make up some taste based argument about how horizontal is the suck and vertical is the awesomes gruuuves. The whole anti cinematic view nefardec takes up is ridiculous as well, including the gripe about the Trentemoller album. Are you guys running out of things to judge? A problem with cinematic landscaping in music? Its easy to judge an individual piece of music, but you guys have thrown that to side and now are up in arms against structures in music lol. Borderline crazy armchair quarterbacks here :stongue:
SYSTEM-J
I'm not making that argument at all you ing imbecile. I like cinematic music, which is why I was defending it in the Trentemoller thread, and I like progressive. Just because I don't like trance's overblown attempts at invoking epic Tolkein narratives doesn't mean I'm criticising a structural methodology, you immense cretin. I've been ignoring your pathetic attempts at participating in this discussion until now, but there's only so much willpower in the world.
Welcome to my ignore list, stick.
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not making that argument at all you ing imbecile. I like cinematic music, which is why I was defending it in the Trentemoller thread, and I like progressive. Just because I don't like trance's overblown attempts at invoking epic Tolkein narratives doesn't mean I'm criticising a structural methodology, you immense cretin. I've been ignoring your pathetic attempts at participating in this discussion until now, but there's only so much willpower in the world.
Welcome to my ignore list, stick.
you mad? :stongue:
Trance is not the best example of progressive structure. Nor was your trance track a good example of horizontally arranged music. And your vertical example wasnt that great either, hardly that many layers in there. Sucks to be judged no?
