Well, then let me serve up a steaming pile of Marty Robbins, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams ( not Jr - yikes, could daddy howl in a bad way), Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, John Williams, Frank Sinatra, Harry Connick Jr, Perry Como, Neil Diamond, Neil Young, Bob Dylan... oh jeepers, I could name hundreds of artists and singers.
Maybe I'm the weirdo with the most wide open taste in the universe.
Weirdo may be correct.
Wide open taste certainly is not.
And this is a honest question:
What on earth are you doing on this subforum for electronic music?
But I do have to wonder, no matter how cool some of their stuff is, if a song in its essence is four repeating measures that loop endlessly with slight changes here and there... if that's innovative, then what isn't?
You're clearly not a golfer
For me, what I want out of Dance music is very different to what I want out other genres. I have never expected it to do anything but make me want to dance. Its not Neil diamond and shouldn't be.
Dub step is about the robot, and I find that interesting. Some of the people who perform to dubstep are extremely talented; i like how its a slower paced and creative style of dance.
Anyway non dancers rarely understand EDM. Which is cool, I'm sure your taste in music is just fine and makes you happy.
In the context of dance (and theater) I can appreciate a much broader spectrum of music than I can as an "abstract listener". Even Skrillex.
On first impression, the disjunctive nature of much of his music feels alien to the human being's primal impulse to move organically -- but that is precisely how it's designed to feel! The experience of moving to this music can be very powerful. It might not be an experience one cares to repeat often (or ever again) but it has value.
But I do have to wonder, no matter how cool some of their stuff is, if a song in its essence is four repeating measures that loop endlessly with slight changes here and there... if that's innovative, then what isn't?
And okay, everything they did isn't that simple. But how much of that defines the typical EDM song?
Depends on the loop obviously. Some people are able to create masterpieces with minimal elements, some people need lots of changes and 50 instruments. And likewise, some people prefer minimal music, some prefer maximal music.
Not defending DM5 and Skrillex here, I don't think they are the most innovative or creative of electronic music artists these days, far from it. More like, they are what Nickelback is to rock music.
__________________
Would Schrödinger's cat sound better OTB?
I appreciate your taste in music, as you have listed some musical greats, but I do believe some awesome music has been made since 1980.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthguy
Except that distortion in general isn't responsible for listener fatigue in most people. What is:
Poor digital conversion (early digital pre-oversampling for instance) and poor quality mp3s
Poor EQing (in particular the smiley curve) especially on non-high end stuff
Squashed dynamics, especially by overloading the mix buss/0db level limits/etc.
Yet another is deaf engineers/producers who won't admit that tinnitus has killed their touch. I do suffer from it a bit, but from a steering wheel airbag detonation in my face - for about a week, I also had the charge flash burned into my retinas! In any case, my ears are still pretty good.
I'm also fortunate that I don't listen to the main casualties of the loudness warz: metal, rap and e-rave. No other genres seem to be suffering from excessively bad production flaws like they do. Even NIN sounds pretty dynamic. And if the world ever does universally sound like bad mp3s? My music won't, my music library won't, and anyone else who will tolerate my production style won't.
But I'm also lucky that most people dislike this sound with a passion, no matter what style of music, so I'm not particularly fussed that the sound of music in general is going to magically become utter squashed throbbing carp one day. And once again, the down-voter wasn't me, nope nope nope...
Well, then let me serve up a steaming pile of Marty Robbins, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams ( not Jr - yikes, could daddy howl in a bad way), Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, John Williams, Frank Sinatra, Harry Connick Jr, Perry Como, Neil Diamond, Neil Young, Bob Dylan... oh jeepers, I could name hundreds of artists and singers.
Maybe I'm the weirdo with the most wide open taste in the universe. The point of my list is that I can grasp why, regardless of style or genre, that some people have a certain something that makes them unique in a good way, and in a way that transcends musical eras. It took me years to appreciate Hank Williams and Dylan, but I finally grasped what it was. They were the minstrels of their day. Their songs were very personal stories and lessons life was forcing on them. In the context of musical artistry, they were rough and raw and about as inelegant as you get. But that means nothing to their fans who will never stop listening and collecting anything and everything that can be found of them.
Forget Clapton. When The Beatles were doing albums with Sir George Martin - yes, he was knighted, a man who's previous daring shift of gears was recording Peter Sellers, becoming "the fifth Beatle" was kind of a mind exploding experience for the classically trained engineer, such as learning that rock guitar meant playing it to the point you were trying to wreck the poor amp! But they ended up teaching each other what this new sound was all about, how to harness it and record it as best anyone could at the time - back when four tracks were a godsend! And yes, they did pal around with Clapton, but that was as much a side issue as anything. So, they decided one day that they would play their amps to destruction. The point isn't the distortion, but how many other amp crunchers have been playing as long?
How about Jimmy Page? Technically, he's a bad guitarist. His style is a mishmash of blues, rock and gypsy melodies, and changes from bar to bar sometimes. But his stuff is timeless, in Zeppelin, The Firm or whatever incarnation you find him in. Or what about Keith Richards? As rough and ragged as an old flannel shirt. And yet, what would the Stones be without him? And how many albums have they done? How many "farewell" tours? How long have The Clash and Adam Ant and Alice Cooper been going at it?
Any artist you care to name will have a group who can't stand them. But some of them will have fans that can't live without them. That says something significant, no matter what anyone's personal opinion is of them, no matter how much better a pop diva, rock or techno demigod's latest album sounds. In some ways, in more permanent lasting ways, in the right ways, they innovated. They created, and their creations lasted, long time.
So, in this corner we have Deadmau5 and Skrillex, two of the biggest EDM figureheads there are. Around here, they're on some pretty high pedestals. Innovators? Holders of something sublime and lasting? Erm... some of us shrug and dunthinkso. Some vehemently disagree. Some counter disagree. But I do have to wonder, no matter how cool some of their stuff is, if a song in its essence is four repeating measures that loop endlessly with slight changes here and there... if that's innovative, then what isn't?
And okay, everything they did isn't that simple. But how much of that defines the typical EDM song?
Anyone who changes the perspective of a scene is an innovator, and although Deadmau5 and Skrillex are sort of taken for granted right now, when they first hit it big, their sound changed the way people made music in that scene. The reason it doesn't sound unique at this point is because EDM producers copy each other like in no other genre, so not many EDM producers can sound very unique for very long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barfunkel
Depends on the loop obviously. Some people are able to create masterpieces with minimal elements, some people need lots of changes and 50 instruments. And likewise, some people prefer minimal music, some prefer maximal music.
Not defending DM5 and Skrillex here, I don't think they are the most innovative or creative of electronic music artists these days, far from it. More like, they are what Nickelback is to rock music.
when people would´nt be innovative we would´nt have genres.. thats the point..
And when followers would´nt be creative that "genre" would´nt last long.
As closer and monochrome the copys get as closer a genre is at its end .. might sell even more for a while.. but sellout is always the beginning of the end.
Only exception..everything with the label progressive.. thats an own sublable for generica and copy cat music.. they somehow sustain themself by a no demand within that genres, quality is not an issue there.., and they follow the mainstream of innovation with 5-10 years distance..
Is progressive the kindergarden of electronic music? before they reach the age to wanna be cool?
Anyone who changes the perspective of a scene is an innovator, and although Deadmau5 and Skrillex are sort of taken for granted right now, when they first hit it big, their sound changed the way people made music in that scene. The reason it doesn't sound unique at this point is because EDM producers copy each other like in no other genre, so not many EDM producers can sound very unique for very long.
the only thing Skrillex has added to the scene is water. He took brostep and made it all weak and wishy washy for the mainstream. it's not the kind of innovation i like.
(Musical) sounds are made up of harmonics spaced at fixed intervals. There's a limit to how much "innovation" you can achieve in a musical context within those constraints. It just so happens that taking a waveform with lots of harmonics and cutting away those you don't need (ie. subtractive synthesis) is the quickest way to arrive at a sound with the desired characteristics. No need to over-complicate it.
(Musical) sounds are made up of harmonics spaced at fixed intervals. There's a limit to how much "innovation" you can achieve in a musical context within those constraints. It just so happens that taking a waveform with lots of harmonics and cutting away those you don't need (ie. subtractive synthesis) is the quickest way to arrive at a sound with the desired characteristics. No need to over-complicate it.
sorry..i dont understand that.. do you assume no innovation is possible because all sounds are allready made?
thats like saying no inovative cooking is possible because all spices are known yet...
but do you know how many different types of chillies are out there alone and that they might do a good job on chocolate too..or with wodka..
it dont has to be always the good ol asti spumante .. a dry champagne version is maybe no innovation but would taste in contrast to the asti quite innovative fresh. maybe this can be combined with purple chilies from peru?
innovations in taste can be good enough.. you dont need to reinvent the wheel to be innovative. A renovation might be better than a mutilation.
i wonder why people see innovation always as such a big problem. small steps count too. All you need is to give up on copying and stick to what you can achieve with that.. In the end innovation is in the character of music, and how will you develop an own character with parts from other peoples musical work?
s
i wonder why people see innovation always as such a big problem.
Exactly.Does anyone here feel they got some new innovative creative style of there own meaning you kinda went with the flow and created something original.Not techno,not house,not rock,not dubstep,not.........???Did you do something unconnected to the trends today??ask your self this wuestion as an exersize everyday at least for one month and then you can comment in this thread (unless you dont think innovation originality is important....) Innovation is not about being fashionable,popular,accepted,stylish,listenable,recognised as something important.Before 1988 in london ect Techno and house were seen as music for gay clubs and lumped in with trashy high energy/disco.Not hip at all.That did not stop the progress for a few visionary producers.
Exactly.Does anyone here feel they got some new innovative creative style of there own meaning you kinda went with the flow and created something original.Not techno,not house,not rock,not dubstep,not.........???Did you do something unconnected to the trends today??ask your self this wuestion as an exersize everyday at least for one month and then you can comment in this thread (unless you dont think innovation originality is important....) Innovation is not about being fashionable,popular,accepted,stylish,listenable,recognised as something important.Before 1988 in london ect Techno and house were seen as music for gay clubs and lumped in with trashy high energy/disco.Not hip at all.That did not stop the progress for a few visionary producers.
No techno bashing please.
i dont want to start with what people have seen goa music to be..
i disconnect often from everything..but thats an excursion in feedback drones with goulish percusions and as a spice a dx 7 factory preset of the worst kind and a grain shreddered pee in the snow loop as texture..
But that usually only gives parts and fx in later live gigs.. no label would release such stuff anyway.. more in the soundtrack department..
however. why would i want to disconnect from genres i like and that are ment to be brought forward any day ?
people can play theire standard bluesrock riffs in rock music when they want or replay the same old scores in classical music.. but in electronic music? you can reinvent it any day and that within just any genre of choice..
Should be total freedown and no generic formular..
The challange is to stay fresh within your genre.. that applies to all 80´s music except comercial gore.. all bands felt it as mandatory to invent themself.. and techno and house are the outcome of the 80´s..
whats the outcome of the 90´s? snafu?
And inventing it yourself within the genre also applys to houzse music.. first dogma.. it needs to be fresh..and some fresh versions started own subgenres.
You rarely hear a track in a techno house night twice or ever again..
compare that with a gay disco please..
So to be innovative its almost enough to be fresh with your sounds and attitude.Innovation light. every day a new track in ideal.. and they are all different...
But to start with presets a "wanna be sound like" project is not exactly fresh from the start.. it only can turn so sour that it tastes fresh again, but this ranks under lucky accident and not design...
In the context of dance (and theater) I can appreciate a much broader spectrum of music than I can as an "abstract listener". Even Skrillex.
On first impression, the disjunctive nature of much of his music feels alien to the human being's primal impulse to move organically -- but that is precisely how it's designed to feel! The experience of moving to this music can be very powerful. It might not be an experience one cares to repeat often (or ever again) but it has value.
Yes, so true Mason vague , very well put I old enough now to find dance music almost painful, but its been a part of me since the late 80's, and I have such a love for the genre and its development.
I've had nights of youtube hopping , just to see these young people dance to dubstep. Its interesting how they've adopted an almost retro Michael Jackson style of dance -moonwalks, the robot, lots of mechanical movement- its very technical and actually quite unfeminine too, so I wouldn't be able to move to it, or rather, wouldn't want to. I suppose everyone should be relieved because if a genre can't get girls dancing like girls, then it will never take over
It really just boils down to fear of failure. Its less demanding and not psychologically taxing to recreate a successful genre of music because its immediately justifiable while trying something unheard of can be a dangerous career move. Once you realize this then the whole discussion gets slathered with irony as you see the kids (like the OP) arguing that because they copy a newer genre of music its 'more novel' than geezers who make classic electronic. Which is a total crock of shit because both adhere to a set of rules created by someone else and neither is doing anything new. Couple this with gearslutz being a procastinators wet dream and Viola you get pages of fruitless arguments. Just stop being pussies.
It really just boils down to fear of failure. Its less demanding and not psychologically taxing to recreate a successful genre of music because its immediately justifiable while trying something unheard of can be a dangerous career move. Once you realize this then the whole discussion gets slathered with irony as you see the kids (like the OP) arguing that because they copy a newer genre of music its 'more novel' than geezers who make classic electronic. Which is a total crock of shit because both adhere to a set of rules created by someone else and neither is doing anything new. Couple this with gearslutz being a procastinators wet dream and Viola you get pages of fruitless arguments. Just stop being pussies.
Threads you're reading.
you may call it an argument, i would call it more a philosophical debate on music
They play and improvise EVERYTHING by hand on their instruments live on stage and in the studio!
No sequencing involved at all!
As highly skilled jazz musicians, they are applying the idiom of improvisation to their music, using the language of electronic music from Dubstep to Drum&Bass to whatever....call it what you want!
Nerve live on stage:
Nerve in the recording studio:
JoJo Mayer tries to answer the question, what his music is:
PS: The drummer JoJo Mayer was born in Zürich, Switzerland. He went to New York to meet Miles Davis in 1991, but Miles just died short before he could meet him...He lives and works in NYC since then.
It really just boils down to fear of failure. Its less demanding and not psychologically taxing to recreate a successful genre of music because its immediately justifiable while trying something unheard of can be a dangerous career move. Once you realize this then the whole discussion gets slathered with irony as you see the kids (like the OP) arguing that because they copy a newer genre of music its 'more novel' than geezers who make classic electronic. Which is a total crock of shit because both adhere to a set of rules created by someone else and neither is doing anything new. Couple this with gearslutz being a procastinators wet dream and Viola you get pages of fruitless arguments. Just stop being pussies.
You can usually tell who the pioneers are. They're usually the guys face down with a bunch of arrows in their backs.
They play and improvise EVERYTHING by hand on their instruments live on stage and in the studio!
No sequencing involved at all!
As highly skilled jazz musicians, they are applying the idiom of improvisation to their music, using the language of electronic music from Dubstep to Drum&Bass to whatever....call it what you want!
JoJo Mayer tries to answer the question, what his music is:
PS: The drummer JoJo Mayer was born in Zürich, Switzerland. He went to New York to meet Miles Davis in 1991, but Miles just died short before he could meet him...He lives and works in NYC since then.
Nice. But... This just sounds like Dubstep/Drumstep with live drums to me. How is this different, other than the live element? I remember Drum 'n' Bass went through the same pattern of live stuff. That was pretty icky time, to be honest.
The current state of Dubstep could be accused of being more samey than almost anything else. Not at all like the more interesting and varied stuff that kinda morphed out of Garage back in the early/mid 2000s. Rusko and then Brostep and then Skrillex got the fratboy crowd fired up and became what is generally accepted as Dubstep, despite there still being the steadfast holdouts still exploring new styles.
An interesting Study would be to look at the beginnings of all genres to the point where EVERYBODY is talking about it and then tracking how it becomes more and more alike as more kids get into making it and wanting to appeal to the scene at large. They jump on forums asking how to create X sounds and how to mimic x,y,z artists. People apologize for them and say that they'll develop their own style later, but more often than not they just end up as clones of whatever is currently popular in the scene for fear of being ignored or not being played out by DJs. I think a lot of people get into electronic music with the wrong intentions. They want acceptance within certain genres and scenes instead of wanting to express themselves artistically. I've seen it with every genre I've been involved in over the years.
Fvck genres, DJs, scenes and peer acceptance if you want to make something different.
Nice. But... This just sounds like Dubstep/Drumstep with live drums to me. How is this different, other than the live element? I remember Drum 'n' Bass went through the same pattern of live stuff. That was pretty icky time, to be honest.
The current state of Dubstep could be accused of being more samey than almost anything else. Not at all like the more interesting and varied stuff that kinda morphed out of Garage back in the early/mid 2000s. Rusko and then Brostep and then Skrillex got the fratboy crowd fired up and became what is generally accepted as Dubstep, despite there still being the steadfast holdouts still exploring new styles.
An interesting Study would be to look at the beginnings of all genres to the point where EVERYBODY is talking about it and then tracking how it becomes more and more alike as more kids get into making it and wanting to appeal to the scene at large. They jump on forums asking how to create X sounds and how to mimic x,y,z artists. People apologize for them and say that they'll develop their own style later, but more often than not they just end up as clones of whatever is currently popular in the scene for fear of being ignored or not being played out by DJs. I think a lot of people get into electronic music with the wrong intentions. They want acceptance within certain genres and scenes instead of wanting to express themselves artistically. I've seen it with every genre I've been involved in over the years.
Fvck genres, DJs, scenes and peer acceptance if you want to make something different.
JoJo Mayer and Nerve play Jazz music. Jazz music always used to absorbe current musical streams, applying the idiom of improvisation and personal expression to it.
Your statement doesn't do justice to their music. Listen and study what they do and experience them live. It isn't just a live copy of current electronic music trends, it's a NEW FORM of INNOVATIVE and DIFFERENT Jazz music...
Excerpt from Wikipedia: Defintion of Jazz:
"In jazz the skilled performer will interpret a tune in very individual ways, never playing the same composition exactly the same way twice. Depending upon the performer's mood and personal experience, interactions with other musicians, or even members of the audience, a jazz musician/performer may alter melodies, harmonies or time signature at will. European classical music has been said to be a composer's medium. Jazz, on the other hand, is often characterized as the product of egalitarian creativity, interaction and collaboration, placing equal value on the contributions of composer (if there is one) and performer, 'adroitly weigh[ing] the respective claims of the composer and the improviser'..."
JoJo Mayer and Nerve play Jazz music. Jazz music always used to absorbe current musical streams, applying the idiom of improvisation and personal expression to it.
Your statement doesn't do justice to their music. Listen and study what they do and experience them live. It isn't just a live copy of current electronic music trends, it's a NEW FORM of INNOVATIVE and DIFFERENT Jazz music...
Excerpt from Wikipedia: Defintion of Jazz:
"In jazz the skilled performer will interpret a tune in very individual ways, never playing the same composition exactly the same way twice. Depending upon the performer's mood and personal experience, interactions with other musicians, or even members of the audience, a jazz musician/performer may alter melodies, harmonies or time signature at will. European classical music has been said to be a composer's medium. Jazz, on the other hand, is often characterized as the product of egalitarian creativity, interaction and collaboration, placing equal value on the contributions of composer (if there is one) and performer, 'adroitly weigh[ing] the respective claims of the composer and the improviser'..."
Well, their 'personal expression' just ends up sounding like bog-standard Dubstep with live drums, so I guess it's just not that personal or expressive.
If you have to explain why something is different, chances are that it's really not that different.
Watch Miles Davis playing a composition which Prince once wrote for him:
The sound of Prince's music influenced Miles Davis very much in the late 1980's and as a Jazz musician, he was absorbing the music of Prince into his own music.
I guess some folks here would therefore conclude that Miles Davis was therefore nothing but a Prince copyist, mimicking the same Prince music just in different clothes...
This is of course a fundamental misunderstanding of Jazz music.
ha ha I didn't say anything about living a long life or looking youthful. I seriously doubt she would have been as good without the drugs.
I'm sort of half serious and half joking about the drugs. I will say this, they seem to help with not giving a **** what everybody else thinks, which can lead to some unexplored territories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozy
Yes. They help you look like your grandmother even if you're 25
I'm sure he still sounded like Miles the **** Davis, and not Prince, so no he was not a copycat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicFan
Watch Miles Davis playing a composition which Prince once wrote for him:
The sound of Prince's music influenced Miles Davis very much in the late 1980's and as a Jazz musician, he was absorbing the music of Prince into his own music.
I guess some folks here would therefore conclude that Miles Davis was therefore nothing but a Prince copyist, mimicking the same Prince music just in different clothes...
This is of course a fundamental misunderstanding of Jazz music.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
