|
What do you think of dubstep? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
I don't know when you last went in MD, but hardstyle and hard trance are certainly not very popular in these parts anymore. I'm not trying to portray trance listeners as deeper or of better taste, it's just what they're looking for is very different. It just makes everyone sound like narrow-minded simpletons to claim they don't "get" dubstep because they like melody and not bass. Nobody should ever use the word "get" (IE: "understand") as a synonym for "like".
Yes, all genres are generic to some extent, which is why I generally prefer music that doesn't neatly fit into genres, but that is just unhelpfully broad and evasive. Some genres are considerably more broad and inventive than others, depending on the definition of the genre, the audience and the attitudes involved. For example, "IDM" refers to a diaspora of varied music united by only a few common characteristics, with a general listener base and approach that encourages experimentation. By contrast, "forest psychedelic trance" refers to an incredibly slim and narrowly defined body of music. Some genres do not repeat the same manipulative tricks and clichéd set pieces over and over and over, and some do. That is why people on uplifting trance and brostep, but not on Detroit techno.
And all this hand-wringing over "outliers" is exactly the same problem that you get with defining any genre. There is no systematic definition of any genre, nor any consistent method by which genres or coined or used. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't know when you last went in MD, but hardstyle and hard trance are certainly not very popular in these parts anymore. I'm not trying to portray trance listeners as deeper or of better taste, it's just what they're looking for is very different. It just makes everyone sound like narrow-minded simpletons to claim they don't "get" dubstep because they like melody and not bass. Nobody should ever use the word "get" (IE: "understand") as a synonym for "like". |
I meant that in the most passive kind of way, like when you say you "got scared" or you "get a pleasant feeling", hence the quotes. I didn't mean to call anyone a simpleton, but rather "a person who does not enjoy music as described in this post". I apologise if it sounded arrogant on my part.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yes, all genres are generic to some extent, which is why I generally prefer music that doesn't neatly fit into genres, but that is just unhelpfully broad and evasive. Some genres are considerably more broad and inventive than others, depending on the definition of the genre, the audience and the attitudes involved. For example, "IDM" refers to a diaspora of varied music united by only a few common characteristics, with a general listener base and approach that encourages experimentation. By contrast, "forest psychedelic trance" refers to an incredibly slim and narrowly defined body of music. Some genres do not repeat the same manipulative tricks and clichéd set pieces over and over and over, and some do. That is why people on uplifting trance and brostep, but not on Detroit techno. |
Could it have something to do with popularity though? It seems to be that, the more popular a genre is, the more (unfair) criticism it gets. As someone living on a developing country, I'm under the impression that Tiësto and Skrillex attained a level of popularity perhaps only matched by big beat in the late 90's. And, although I didn't know anyone else who liked EDM back then, I remember hearing something like "Sugar is Sweeter" being CJ Bolland's pisstake at the Prodigy's pompous "Poison".
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And all this hand-wringing over "outliers" is exactly the same problem that you get with defining any genre. There is no systematic definition of any genre, nor any consistent method by which genres or coined or used. |
But when producers embrace a label as part of a movement, for the lack of a better word, even the deviations can be more easily lumped together with the most prototypical tracks, methinks. The Belleville trio were consciously trying to make something new and distinct from house music, as far as I know, and the techno movement showed more coherence in this respect even if genres like tech-house emerged much later. It wasn't something "imposed" from outside". The same with drum'n'bass, I believe, in which producers gradually formed an identity around a structure that slowly evolved with a common conscience that it was a coherent genre. That's why I like Ishkur's 10 tracks, 5 Artists, 2 labels rule for new genres.
In this case, brostep producers in general, still believe they're dubstep producers (as you can see from tracks like Dubba Jonny's "Dubstep Tutorial")... so I tend to be, in this particular case, sceptical both about its existence AND if it somehow fits someone's definition, its usefulness. Unless, of course, people embrace the new term and purposefully diverge from traditional forms of dubstep. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Could it have something to do with popularity though? It seems to be that, the more popular a genre is, the more (unfair) criticism it gets. |
Of course. If something is more popular, it's going to receive more criticism because more people will have heard it. When dubstep was just another pirate radio mutation in the early '00s, 99% of the world had never heard of it and never heard it, and thus had no opinion on it. If any underground genre was somehow elevated to sudden ubiquity, people would be coming out of the walls to hate on it, because they couldn't get away from this sound they didn't like at all.
I find your drum 'n bass example baffling, for numerous reasons. You've picked the most diverse and wide-open genre of dance music as one where it's easy to reconcile a "prototypical" formula? There has always been open ideological warfare within the drum 'n bass scene, so any idea that the genre had a "common conscience" is absolute nonsense. And good luck trying to tell me that the hugely varied music labelled as techno is more protoypical than brostep. Techno is a trendy, credible name, brostep is a derogatory term. Take a guess which one producers are going to identify with and which one people are going to reject. It has almost no bearing on the cohesion of the actual music. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Of course. If something is more popular, it's going to receive more criticism because more people will have heard it. When dubstep was just another pirate radio mutation in the early '00s, 99% of the world had never heard of it and never heard it, and thus had no opinion on it. If any underground genre was somehow elevated to sudden ubiquity, people would be coming out of the walls to hate on it, because they couldn't get away from this sound they didn't like at all. |
Precisely.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I find your drum 'n bass example baffling, for numerous reasons. You've picked the most diverse and wide-open genre of dance music as one where it's easy to reconcile a "prototypical" formula? There has always been open ideological warfare within the drum 'n bass scene, so any idea that the genre had a "common conscience" is absolute nonsense. And good luck trying to tell me that the hugely varied music labelled as techno is more protoypical than brostep. Techno is a trendy, credible name, brostep is a derogatory term. Take a guess which one producers are going to identify with and which one people are going to reject. It has almost no bearing on the cohesion of the actual music. |
I mentioned drum'n'bass well aware of this.
Despite all the rivalries, there's this common thread that changed very little throughout the history of drum'n'bass - once it got past its formative years, during which labels like "Moving Shadow" still released records that sound today more similar to what we'd call old skool rave, there weren't many deviations from the standard formula: Around 170 BPM (give or take 10 BPM) and the snare on the 2nd and 4th beats (with the 2nd snare being sometimes half-beat before or after the standard). Even the stuttering that was more common back in the day, with a beat that sounded like the record was skipping, becoming less and less prominent. Once this was settled as the norm, it gave rise to loads of different subgenres, but even the derogatory terms, such as clownstep, counted as drum'n'bass. When I say drum'n'bass is my favourite genre (and it is), I put myself in a difficult situation: am I talking about LTJ Bukem or Black Sun Empire? In a sense, both.
This doesn't seem to apply here: Non-brostep producers seem to consider brostep something altogether different and unconnected. Unlike techno and trance, which branched out from house music to become genres on their own right, the lack of a similar schism on drum'n'bass is quite impressive, given its sheer diversity.
Edit: Hmmm... there's breakcore, but I guess it developed from hardcore, not really from drum'n'bass. A quick search on wikipedia says I'm right, but I reserve myself the right to be wrong :p |
|
|
| Titanium |
| quote: | Originally posted by brendon575
dubstep is great. i think genre labeling things is weird but if it is at the whole 140 kick snare then i think it is definitely dubstep.
and im really surprised skrillex didnt win best new artist. i dont really know of any one in the edm community that does work harder than that guy.
another thing.
bringing the underground to the mainstream is great. it causes the underground to evolve even more.
and the engineering involved with most of those synths is awesome. so much better than stereotypical synths in most genres. |
bahahahah! I hope you are joking dude. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Precisely. |
Precisely what? My point is that the link between popularity and criticism has nothing to do with the fairness of that criticism. This notion that people just hate on what's popular to appear cool is a fallacy. People don't hate brostep for being popular, its popularity merely exacerbates its capacity to irritate.
And brostep is just a specific type of dubstep, just as clownstep is still drum 'n bass. This idea that brostep producers think they're still making dubstep, therefore brostep doesn't exist is a false opposition at best, and straight up bull at worst. To compare drum 'n bass as an overall genre with brostep as a specific subgenre is just nonsense. It does not compute.
And your history of techno and trance is wrong. Neither came from house music. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by enydo
holy e |
? |
|
|
| sljiva |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Edit: Hmmm... there's breakcore, but I guess it developed from hardcore, not really from drum'n'bass. A quick search on wikipedia says I'm right, but I reserve myself the right to be wrong :p |
You're wrong, though not completely. Breakcore developed from small short-lived mid 90s drill 'n bass scene, which was itself an offshot of drum 'n bass, but used certain rave elements together with spliced up ultra fast amen breaks, timestretched drums, characteristic hiccups and glitch. If you listen to albums such as Drum 'n' Bass For Papa by Plug, Conumber EP by Squarepusher and even Hangable Auto Bulb by AFX, you can hear rhythmical and structural inspiration for breakcore. |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Some genres do not repeat the same manipulative tricks and clichéd set pieces over and over and over, and some do. That is why people on uplifting trance and brostep, but not on Detroit techno. |
I disagree. If we are talking about the very specific sound of Detroit Techno (ie. not the idealistic definition) then Detroit Techno does use the same techniques and clichees over and over. The difference is that uplifting Trance and Brostep have vastly more mainstream appeal (for the lack of a better word) which leads to loads of rubbish producers which flood the world with low quality, to-the-extreme cliche tracks which makes people hate the genre. Detroit Techno has gotten away with using the same tricks for 25 years because it's always just (mostly) been made by a rather small group of very good producers which enshures that a) the market is never oversatured with this specific sound and b) the average quality of Detroit Techno is very high. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Please detail which techniques and clichés you're referring to. I highly doubt you're actually talking about set pieces or manipulative routines, but I'm welcome to be proven wrong. |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Please detail which techniques and clichés you're referring to. I highly doubt you're actually talking about set pieces or manipulative routines, but I'm welcome to be proven wrong. |
Pretty much every typical Detroit Techno track uses the exact same type of background strings as well as your typical "detroit-ish" melody to invoke the bliss-bitterweet emotional response you normally get frome listening to Detroit Techno.
If you have a different definition of "manipulative routines" and set pieces, I'd like to know why Brostep and Epic Trance have those and Detroit Techno does not. |
|
|
|
|
