|
"wall of sound' a new synonym for 'overproduction'? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sykonee |
Don't want to get into a tiff between you and J', but one thing I have to mention:
| quote: | regarding the dubstep thread. There is only one. Yay or nay. You mention how certain strains, whIch is exactly what I said , are just gimmicky nonsense with surface novelties. Of course you don't mention specific artists but you make it clear that "brostep " is the particular strain you don't like which is arguably big enough to be its own genre. You then go on to say that you get it but despite getting it, you seem to be able to ascertain that the elements involved are just gimmicks with nothing of value. Do the ing search and keep your 100$.
And this is were I start to have issue. Because you call it a gimmick yet you don't know what the gimmick is. You couldn't recreate the sounds, you couldn't parse the form and realize what is different about it. I just wonder how you could possibly make that assertion. You know nothing about how it was produced. You find it gimmicky but you don't get it because to understand is to be able to recreate it. And sadly i think that is beyond the scope of your bedroom djing. You have no knowledge that would give you any sort of opinion that wasn't completely based on your own personal taste. |
The entirety of brostep's popularity is centered on it's one defining gimmick: the Drop. It doesn't matter how many hours or days a producer spends in the studio perfecting the intricacies of his robot rage-rape noises, all that matters is how much the audience goes off on it or not. And brostep's increased the gimmickry of it by using recognizable dance anthems and pop hooks for further appeal.
To be honest though, this is a gimmick dance music's employed for ages. Breakdown-Build-Drop, rinse, etc. Brostep just cranked the mosh potential to eleven. I'm pretty sure 90% of its fanbase care less how much studio time went into a particular track's drop, so long as they can get their rage on.
Edit: It sort of reminds me of that scene in The Simpsons where Marge spends extra effort making breakfast look unique and special, then Homer and Bart rush in, scarf it within seconds, and rush out. I wonder how producers feel about that. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
just like 4 on the floor is a gimmick. or a ing arpeggiated jp 8000. You want to talk about gimmicks, i mean ing start with trance, The only ing new things happening in it are production aesthetics from these "gimmicks" . I'm sorry but a drop is not different than a drop in trance. But there are some funny youtube memes and people use it like they know what the it is and perhaps where it it occurs else where. It is essentially the chorus. It happens in every ing genre. So although some of it has become derivative, that isn't what one should judge the genre just like i wouldn't judge trance on the bad music. Read Adorno's essay regarding pop music and well for the last 80 ing years, its all gimmicks. So don't ing spare that term for just one genre you don't like. trance is a ing gimmick factory.
The point is that he pretty much says it has no merit. Only surface details like the he listens to has layers of ing meta production that would take years to unravel. You don't see threads about how to produce trance because its so ing easy. When brostep started comming up along with those electro spin offs, people have no ing idea. The sound design is extremely detailed. But he doesn't know this so it doesn't occur. He also doesn't seem to realize that the form of much of it has drastically changed from what EDM has pretty much followed for the last 2 decades.
So although I respect your tastes, anyone that claims it is just superficial garbage is basing it on their tastes. They don't see any merit perhaps like a child would not see merit in a book without pictures.
I don't champion it. But I will defend it when people that are not qualified to have an opinion that is based on tangible musical concepts start bulling. These people are the same as those rockers that say EDM is just machines. I mean how ing hard is it to push a button. Same idiocy. Same level of ignorance. Some clueless heads that need to impose their tastes on others. |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
The point is that he pretty much says it has no merit. Only surface details like the he listens to has layers of ing meta production that would take years to unravel. You don't see threads about how to produce trance because its so ing easy. When brostep started comming up along with those electro spin offs, people have no ing idea. The sound design is extremely detailed. But he doesn't know this so it doesn't occur. He also doesn't seem to realize that the form of much of it has drastically changed from what EDM has pretty much followed for the last 2 decades. |
But is all that intricacy even necessary? I can understand why producers love to do that - have tools, will use - but the target audience doesn't seem to care one way or the other, so long as it's noisy as . |
|
|
| Goschie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
just like 4 on the floor is a gimmick. or a ing arpeggiated jp 8000. You want to talk about gimmicks, i mean ing start with trance, The only ing new things happening in it are production aesthetics from these "gimmicks" . I'm sorry but a drop is not different than a drop in trance. But there are some funny youtube memes and people use it like they know what the it is and perhaps where it it occurs else where. It is essentially the chorus. It happens in every ing genre. So although some of it has become derivative, that isn't what one should judge the genre just like i wouldn't judge trance on the bad music. Read Adorno's essay regarding pop music and well for the last 80 ing years, its all gimmicks. So don't ing spare that term for just one genre you don't like. trance is a ing gimmick factory.
The point is that he pretty much says it has no merit. Only surface details like the he listens to has layers of ing meta production that would take years to unravel. You don't see threads about how to produce trance because its so ing easy. When brostep started comming up along with those electro spin offs, people have no ing idea. The sound design is extremely detailed. But he doesn't know this so it doesn't occur. He also doesn't seem to realize that the form of much of it has drastically changed from what EDM has pretty much followed for the last 2 decades.
So although I respect your tastes, anyone that claims it is just superficial garbage is basing it on their tastes. They don't see any merit perhaps like a child would not see merit in a book without pictures.
I don't champion it. But I will defend it when people that are not qualified to have an opinion that is based on tangible musical concepts start bulling. These people are the same as those rockers that say EDM is just machines. I mean how ing hard is it to push a button. Same idiocy. Same level of ignorance. Some clueless heads that need to impose their tastes on others. |
I think people confuse "gimmickry" with "cleverness". Unless you hybrid the genres, you could argue that some have higher skill ceilings than others. In trance music, cleverness could take you really far. The 4/4 drum pattern can easily lock someone down, so it takes a clever person to throw tricks and details in, in the right way. But trance has an incredibly tough skill ceiling because think about it, on one hand you have 4/4 drum pattern and bassline layering that is generally pretty straightforward, utilizing clever syncopation often. On the other you have melody that will take you as high as you want to go. It could be simple side chained chords or incredibly complex Beethoven style. But in the end they have to lock together. So it really is as much effort you put in is what you get out.
Dubstep aint no different. But instead of layering, its about rhythm and sound design. The once melodically simple low end of trance is now the core feature of a dubstep track, so effort must be shifted.
Then you have monsters like drum and bass, which I still think is the absolute hardest genre to make. Its all important, down to the very closed high hat, to the buzzing leads and dark chord stabs.
So as you guys argue about this stuff, keep "cleverness" in mind. To say anybody can produce a good pop song is simply a lie. It took an extremely clever person with a minimal amount of options to produce something that millions of people can identify with, whether its cheesy or not. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | | The effect , or the technique used now is not the same, it involves less elements are that would not make the argument for over production. Bad production, in my opinion, perhaps. |
I know that, you ridiculously stupid , it's right there in my first post:
| quote: | | overproduction often leads to tracks being packed with so much aural they unintentionally resemble a wall of sound, even though there's no effect being gained from it |
The whole point of my post was to say they aren't the same thing, although sometimes an overproduced track can inadvertantly sound like a tily done pastiche of wall of sound. You've just written 1400 words of angry ranting, and it's basically because I used the word "technique" (as opposed to "strategy", or whatever) in making this point, a point which you've totally and utterly missed. Congratulations. You. Dumb. ing. Bastard. |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by Danyella
i agree.. labels don't offer too much variety anymore these days, they just stick with one sound and thats it. individuality is what makes an artist, but most are just adjusting to their fav label's style and taste to get signed. they copy previous releases to stay in the game which is sad. |
Also Nachbarin, would you describe Summer Breeze or Snow Leopard as different regarding variety? Or do you adapt to the style? Just wondering as a producer might have a different view compared to listeners.
I do like both a lot by the way :) |
|
|
| Psyshell |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Is this another instance of you trying to redefine the English language in order to prove me wrong? |
How about rather than argueing over the meaning of a phrase everyone involved could instead agree there's at least two different definitions and make it clear which one they're using when mentioning the subject matter. That said that seems to be what you're doing and it's more a matter of looney4clooney starting a pointless argument over semantics.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The whole point of my post was to say they aren't the same thing, |
Indeed, when I think of wall of sound i think of either hard techno or ambient where there's an intense ever morphing wall of sound filled with either lots of elements or 3/4 wide/heavy ones. Overproduction on the other hand is an inherently insulting term and ofcourse means too many elements added that don't need to be there. You can have one or the other, or both. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
no,
he made a statement that given the context of the term was not only irrelevant but false. He was the one that seemed to make a big deal about the fact that it had to be a technique because wikipedia says so when all rational minds would agree that given the wording and its usage over the last 150 years, is clearly an aesthetic. I made a counter statement that is contextually more accurate in a civil manner to which he insults me . Read the transcripts. I got angry because he constantly side steps the issue at hand more keen on being right no matter who he has to insult or undermine a person on something totally unrelated. He was the one that would not could not concede. his use of the term extremely lacking in relevance in that it applies to a period decades ago. Now had this just been an added historical tid bit , that would of been great but he makes no mention of the historical context conflating the topic. When addressed , he suddenly changes his description to a particular period as if I was psychic and knew he was and only was talking about 1 particular producer during an era decades ago.
And you may think it is semantics but his definition, if taken as scripture distorts the thread as it introduces information that is misleading and either completely irrelevant or false. I added, detail going into the actual things producers do , context relating it to how it was done during the metal era and clarity by addressing his initial post which i felt was incorrect.
It is an aesthetic. It always was. It still is. There are different techniques that are done to achieve it. I think i already mentioned how this new trend in dance is arguably a case of less production. It involves less layers. It follows the same pop punk formula cutting as many elements as possible thus making things sound bigger.
And this is thread is about the aesthetic mentioned and overproduction. I didn't stray until system j decided to be a prick. He attacked my character. He strayed from the conversation by undermining my opinion with his ad hominems. I felt his attacks warranted a defense.
So if you are annoyed by the signal to noise ratio, perhaps ask system j to stop being a dick. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| You were starting a pointless fight by quibbling over word use and missing the point of my post, so I affirmed that I was completely happy with my wording. My aim was never to precisely define what wall of sound is, but to emphasise its difference from overproduction, and given that aim my choice of wording was satisfactory. You seem to think I have actually given a definition of "wall of sound" in this thread, when all I did was quote a "result" to show your enforced heirarchy of these nouns was not as concrete as you seem to be suggesting. Thread #65983 where L4C starts an irrelevant argument because he can't read. Take some classes or something. |
|
|
| Psyshell |
I do think the wikipedia definition is potentially irrelevent (especially wikipedia's knowledge of electronic music... which suffice to say has many issues, e.g. their definition of a rave isn't exactly 100% accurate and most of their electronic music articles are based largely on definitions in ishkurs guide)... with that said however I do think that wall of sound can be used in a positive way (as in as a production technique and not a criticism of a piece of music) because I have heard that phrase used in that way a fair amount previously.
@L4C If you think someone's insulting you on TA... maybe just try and ignore the insult, point it out and go on to make a decent post anyway. I know I'm not exactly good at that but still, it's a good idea.
I find L4C's logic to just be bizarre. Especially when it's argueing about such a basic concept (does wall of sound have 1 or 2 definitions?).
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
emphasise its difference from overproduction |
With that I absolutely agree
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The result is the "dense, layered, reverberant sound that came across well on AM radio and jukeboxes popular in the era" that Wikipedia refers to. Wall of sound was the production technique, which can be broken down further into the various methods and processes you're insisting can only be called "techniques". This is simply a case of semantic quibbling, of you trying to impose a linguistic heirarchy in order to score inconsequential points. I may as well point out that your last sentence, despite all your edits, is syntactically nonsensical. |
I do agree as well.
Anyway, back on topic:
I do like the direction that trance has been going lately with the very electro style that it's aiming for. I get bored of it fairly quickly (in a similar way to electro) but at least it's doing something new and interesting. The older trance stuff that was made 3-4 years ago was just recycled garbage from ~2003 with it just getting worse every year. At least the direction trance has gone into is new even if it's still pretty generic. |
|
|
| wolftickets |
| A synonym for the "loudness war". |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psyshell
I find L4C's logic to just be bizarre. Especially when it's argueing about such a basic concept (does wall of sound have 1 or 2 definitions?).
. |
My logic would first be to define the terms in use otherwise any discussion is rather pointless. This is why it is particularly important to understand the first term " wall of sound " as the general aesthetic applied to for over a century to music that sounded so big to the listener. It matters in that the next portion of the thread title is directly related to the technique.
What Phil Spector did, that is the layering and use of multiple sources of the same material could be considered over production. Now when it comes to EDM, that technique is not used yet lo and behold, you still get a wall of sound as the OP demonstrated. The technique actually requires a lack of layers as the less elements you have, the larger they seem. EDM has also become much less reverberant with a large part of the elements being completely dry. It is in no way similar to the definition given by system J.
So once you define the terms in a way that makes sense in the context of this thread, which unfortunately required system j's poorly thought out description and its irrelevance to be pointed out, it follows that one could now make an argument based on tangible elements that EDM is in fact less produced in some regards. Not all. I would say bad production is a more suitable term.
It is all rather logical. Perhaps my sensitivity to erroneous wording muddying concepts and completely distorting the topic if you actually understood how music is made now and then and what people consider a wall of sound now and then, you would find that it was absolutely necessary to clean up his mess so that we were on a similar page. Not sure why it took so long. I guess not really understanding the concepts , techniques and history can make someone a little hard headed and unaware that certain information is critical. And in this thread, those two terms which make up the title are critical and warranted being addressed. It was only intended as a small amendment to an error system j made but he could not get past the fact that his post was irrelevant and missing several layers of context. |
|
|
|
|
