KVR :: Music Theory » Why is electronic dance music typically very simple? [View Original Topic]
There are 280 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2 3

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:42 pm

---

EDIT:
It's apparent now that my original question was flawed, so I'll revise it here to be more clear.

New (revised) version of qusetion:
Why is it that beat-driven electronic dance music tends to be very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc. (NOT talking about IDM or stuff like Jarre, Tomita, Carlos..etc--I tend to see those as more experimental or avant-garde, not popular dance music). Could it be because electronic dance music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc? Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint, or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians? Maybe electronic dance music has to be kept simple to keep that "vibe" and bogging it down with complexity will kill the dance feel?


The original (flawed) question:
As a fan of electronic music, I've always wondered why most electronic music is very simple in terms of harmony, counterpoint..etc (with the rhythm and melody being exceptions--electronic music can be very complex rhythmically, and sometimes we also get synth solo leads wanking away in a melody as well). I listen to wide range of styles in Electronic music (from classics like Kraftwerk, experimental stuff like IDM, club stuff like progressive house, breakbeat..etc), and more often than not, they follow a very basic formula. Even the more melodic based acts like 808 State or BT, the structure is still quite simple. Could it be because electronic music simply sounds better when it doesn't incorporate complex harmonies, counterpoint..etc (I'm excluding the pseudo-symphony mimicked by synthesizers stuff from the era of giant analog modular synths). Does the use of filters, effects..etc negate the effectiveness of harmony and counterpoint? Or they are simply aspects of music theory that does not interest electronic musicians?

---

mindless - Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:46 pm

---

I don't think that's true at all. There's mountains of complex electronic music out there. Too many to even start naming. Do you get out much?

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:55 pm

---

Please name some so I can check them out.

I have over 600 CD's and over 150 GB worth of mp3's--I'd say yes, I do "get out much."

---

Freeform - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:13 pm

---

Simplicity is a beauty all it's own. If you disected all of the cascading scales in classical, you will find it's a combination of many simple parts working together through theory. Needless to say, there is much direct emotion input as well, but when dealing with unnatural instruments such as a synthesizer, and electronic current itself generating the sound, it opens a new door of perception in my opinion, providing an atmosphere for the abstract, creative, experimental, and passionate all at the same time. Simple is simply a choice, not a demand.

---

zircon - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:22 pm

---

I think because the focus of electronic music tends to be on the manipulation of timbre. I'm working on a song right now that would look like a beginner's piano book exercise if I wrote it down in staff notation. However, it's actually very intricate. There's a ton of stuff going on sonically, and the rhythms are highly dense and layered.

I think BT has found the best balance. If you go over-the-top with integrating complex melodies and harmonies, with electronic dance music, it ends up sounding silly. I've tried. I have yet to hear anyone pull it off right.

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:27 pm

---

Yeah, but what if that 'simple' is arrived at through a lack of knowledge ?
Meaning: It's simplistic rather than simple and beautiful.

If you want to tell a story of how it is on, for example, the top of Kilimanjaro, I will listen to your story if you have been there, NOT if you have seen a picture of it only. A big difference, I think.

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:31 pm

---

That's what I'm thinking as well, but does this have to be an iron-clad phenomenon? I'd love to hear examples of exceptions, because I can't help but think there must be a way to do it without making the piece sound silly.

---

pHz - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:32 pm

---

makes absolutely NO difference in the end

(unless youre a theory wanker)

the result is always just an end point of a process

slainte rob

---

The Chase - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:32 pm

---

Because the particular music you are referring to is simple? Seems like an odd notion to me. I wouldnt call any of Aphex Twin's Drukqs album simple, rythmically or melodically or by timbre, for instance.

---

Reverse Engineer - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:36 pm

---

150GB's of bonkers, euphoria and minstry of sound mp3's doesn't put you in a position to criticise.

Have a listen to Ulrich Schnauss - A Strangely Isolated Place, then come back and apologise for your faux pas.

---

clueless - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:38 pm

---

I'd be pretty f**king critical if I had that.

---

vurt - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:38 pm

---

so just as an example, holts planets only contains 1 worthy track?

---

spacefox - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:39 pm

---

What we normally consider "electronic music" is mostly popular dance music, as opposed to earlier, more experimental works. Dance music needs to be predictable, to a degree, so you can dance to it.
The complex works of people IDMers and Glitchers of all kinds are in many ways a counter-reaction to this simplicity. These artist are, directly or indirectly, influenced by the true pioneers of electronica - those who predated the rise in electronic dance music (kind of like underground hip-hopers of the late 90s and beyond are influeneced by pre-hip-hop black poets)

---

adj - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:39 pm

---

A rather 'leading question'?

Because the majority of computers can easily produce electronic sounds? Because just about anyone can buy a computer? Because such are easily groked by virtually anyone, without them needing even a shred of musical knowledge, and thus, by virtue of this, millions of 'electronic composers' are proliferating to the point that they have created their own genre? That perhaps this may not be a bad thing?

Is this where your headed Rob?


Cheers,
Alex

---

clueless - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:43 pm

---

earth doesn't feature, john.

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:43 pm

---

Don't get me wrong, I love electronic music, and have been a fan of it since I was a kid, and also make electronic music as well. I've heard accomplished composers doing electronic stuff too (for example, Sakamoto Ryuichi), but they are very rare exceptions, and what Sakamoto does electronically tend to fall into the avant-garde arena--not the more accesible electronic stuff.

---

Freeform - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:51 pm

---

I think it's a very good topic to bring up. Yes, anyone can make "techno" sounds. They are called presets, but it's how they use them to create an energy, or lack thereof. To say that music is isolated to only certain kinds of people is a horrible statement. Given, some people are more inclined and gifted in the music area, if you enjoy music, you understand it, and if you understand it then you have the potenetial to explore it and make it yourself. This is just my opinion of course, but the one thing I love about music is that it's not exclusive in it's nature.

---

afreshcupofjoe - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:51 pm

---

How is electronic music any more simple than any other genre of music that has been written in the last 30 years? All I hear when I turn on the radio is the same 3 chords and simple melodies over and over again. Even jazz has been recycling the same coulpe of chord changes and basic melodic structure for some time now.

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:52 pm

---

Yeah, but here we have someone who had the knowledge. And you would have to ask Gustav himself how he arrived at that knowledge. You never know, he might have been kidnapped by aliens and be taken on a tourist treck across the galaxy.

---

vurt - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:53 pm

---

yah, holts is from saturn, came in with the stockhausen family...

or something

---

zircon - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:56 pm

---

It doesn't have to be, but I have yet to see anyone do it well. Also, keep in mind I am referring to electronic dance music - so trance (and its various subgenres), breakbeat, big beat, drum n' bass, all that kind of stuff. Not talking about ambient or 'experimental' electronic compositions.

Try it yourself... when you listen to the final product it just seems 'off'. Something about having a driving rhythm layered below rapidly changing chords and constant tempo changes doesn't work.

Some people have criticized my original stuff as leaning too far towards the "melodic" direction, when compared to groups like The Crystal Method who very strictly limit how much of that they do. You can check it out for yourself and see what you think; www.cdbaby.com/zircon2

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:58 pm

---

Lord no. More like I'm fishing for people to introduce me to some really kickass and complex electronic music that's not necessarily in the avant-garde experimental arena, or some kind of mellow synth pad drones.

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:01 pm

---

It may make a lot of difference. Since music for me is a language and if someone is using a language without having some sort of grounding in it, all we will hear is gibberish.

And it's not just about (music) theory, as you have so succintly phrased it.

---

Freeform - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:02 pm

---

Check out Shpongle.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=49430046

---

Reverse Engineer - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:05 pm

---

I love gibberish though.

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:12 pm

---

That's fair enough. I can't help that.

---

shinken - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:12 pm

---

Or rather, if you don't understand the language then all you will hear is gibberish.

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:14 pm

---

zircon - I listened to your stuff, and it certainly is more melodically driven compared to the average stuff out there.

I've tried to do more harmonically complex stuff before, and all it does it make is sound like I'm trying to incorporate a symphony into a dance track. It doesn't work too well, because it does take away the driving element of dance music.

Freeform - I have some Shpongle stuff, and when they go for the more melodically/harmonically complex stuff, they tend to use sounds that are similar to acoustic instruments.

I guess people do incorporate the orchestra or other acoustic instruments into electronic tracks, but it's not the same as using the synthesized sounds. There is a big difference in how they effect the overall vibe of the track.

---

BASSDRIVE - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:14 pm

---

Simple is better I think. It's more pleasant to the ear & mind IMO. Some of my songs I'm most proud of are the simplist I've created. I think if you choose to go very simple, you have to use the right sounds though and FX usage. Delay, reverb,... to create a sense of ambience and movement to compensate for the simplicity in the harmonies. I personally can't stand anything that sounds too dry especially if there ain't too much going on in the harmony. If your going to have a couple of simple piano notes or chords, maybe throw in some delay & verb, might help out a lot.

Just check out Robert Miles' album "Dreamland." Overall it's quite simple compared to today's trance, but it's just wonderful because of how he does it. He really creates an awesome sense of atmosphere with all his songs and it makes the simple, sound beautiful. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hw6NsD6cbMI http://youtube.com/watch?v=94-jkb9k82Y

Another example:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4NXkL-asK9M

---

adj - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:14 pm

---

Certainly, in the vanguard of electronic music, you'd have to consider some of the early electro-rock pioneers -- perhaps Keith Emerson and Tod Rundgren, for instance, whose works were musically rich in texture and complexity and kicked arse. I could go on...

In fact, the earliest I know of and adore is the work of Louis & Bebe Barron -- creators of the soundtrack for 'Forbidden Planet', circa 1959, and perhaps the inspiration for all subsequent 'space' music.

Otherwise, perhaps you are speaking of a more specific genre of electro-pop or whatever? The term 'Electronic Music' covers SO much territory...

Cheers,
Alex

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm

---

wqtxqts <-- that was suppose to be a word in Japanese. Since I don't know Japanese it's all gibberish. Is it not to you ?

---

Reverse Engineer - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:20 pm

---

That was a lousy example, here's a better one:

"Constantinople made my eyes hammery on a sunday of bucket monkeys and spanner biscuits when a cloudy peapod lumped my cavernous munchplate".

---

shinken - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:22 pm

---

I'm not trying to be facetious, but seriously I don't think that's gibberish, if you regard it as a musical phrase. There is repetition of qt denoting rhythmic structure (the repetition of ugliness equals beauty in the theories of Kodwo Eshun), and the w and x and s may comprise a tonic, dominant and subdominant respectively, if wqtxqts ever comes around a second time.

---

Freeform - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:24 pm

---

Samples in electronic music have been used for a long time. Although you can consider vocals "organic and natural", and drum samples "acoustic", there are countless manipulations of organic instruments out there in techno tracks. To be horribly technical, one could even argue that everything is organic in nature, including digital. It's just been modified and manipulated more. If you sample an acoustic guitar and filter the hell out of it, it's not going to sound like an acoustic guitar obviously, and this can be considered "electronic" music. still. There are no boundaries....

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:31 pm

---

Very good.

---

deaf dunderkwac - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:34 pm

---

being a simpleton, I prefer simplistic

---

Scot Solida - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:36 pm

---

There's lots of electronic music that has some depth. Try Wendy Carlos' "Beauty in the Beast" or "Heaven and Hell".

---

Lord Snarebottom - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:37 pm

---

The same exact thing happened to me last week!!! What a coincidence!

---

foosnark - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:37 pm

---

There's a lot of simple music in the world and not all of it is electronic. There's also a lot of electronic music that is not simple at all. And a lot more where the ideas of melody/harmony that we inherited from Western classical music just don't even apply and the question becomes unanswerable.

---

Topiness - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:41 pm

---

any piece of music comes to us as just a waveform. or, maybe two waveforms, since we have two ears.

How 'complex' a piece of music is is simply down to how you, PERSONALLY, analyse it. For example - what you hear as timbre, i may hear as harmony or even rhythm. Or even colour, for that matter.

It's even more of a jump to imply that complex somehow = good. As our ears are assaulted with more and more unwanted music, I'm another one looking more and more for elegance and space in music, not 1000 things going on at a time.

---

Armadillo - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:42 pm

---

I'm still waiting for some names of complex electronic music. I'd love to hear something new (for me). Who's the John Williams et al of electronic music?

Aphex twin, BT and Shpongle all been mentioned but is that as good as it gets?
Yes, there's some complex IDM out there but it's rather chaotic for the most part, ie. more like throwing some samples through some FSU plugins and see what happens, rather than having a flowing continuity.

---

himalaya - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:44 pm

---

Listening to Mikhail Chekalin's 'Equilibrium and Alarm' from the 'Night Pulsation' album (Erdenklang label) just now.

Have a listen to this album, Lunatique. Sounds fresh even after all these years ( produced in 1993).

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:49 pm

---

But doesn't that fall into one of the excluded categories I mentioned (big analog modular synths doing a pseudo symphony, or avant-garde/experimental)? I'm mostly asking about ways to incorporate complex harmonies and counterpoint into more beat-driven electronic music.

---

Topiness - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:50 pm

---

A lot of Music by The Orb and FSOL was really complex, AND had a good flow to it. However, a lot of that complexity was created by skilful layering of samples, rather than built up note by note, which may bother you.

Massive Attack had some complex harmonies and counterpoint alongside their electronics, but they were often done with real strings.

---

Freeform - Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:55 pm

---

FSOL =

---

vurt - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:01 pm

---

counterpoint in electronica with beats, start with the orbs little fluffy clouds...

---

Reverse Engineer - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:03 pm

---

Michel Banabila is a name that could never be mentioned enough.

---

HunterKiller - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:17 pm

---

Check out: Jean Michel Jarre, Klaus Schulze, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk.

---

xis23 - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:18 pm

---

yeah i dont understand it: using technology to go backwards! wtf!

---

3*s - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:22 pm

---

Because rhythm and texture are typically the main feature of electronic music.

Like how melody, harmony and syncopation are the main feature of traditional music, while the textural aspect remains very simple.

---

Scot Solida - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:26 pm

---

Neither, actually...Those two albums were made long after the analog modular was relegated to the corner of her studio. The former is an alternate tuning tour de force that makes use of additive synthesis techniques to create unusual synthetic "ethnic" sorts of instruments. The latter is more classical influenced, but is as electronic as it is orchestral. Neither are beat-oriented, neither are they popular music. It seems to me, though that your question is more about specific genres, rather than electronic music. There is lots of stuff that isn't beat oriented that is complex and electronic, and I quite imagine that there is some complex stuff out there that is both electronic and beat oriented...though I couldn't say what they were.

A brief bit of OT...I thought I might venture to say that I quite enjoy your art. I just started working with digital painting myself, after years of doing it the "analog" way.

---

vurt - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:30 pm

---

its a bit worrying that you dismiss at least 50 years worth of work just because it wasnt popular in your opinion.

---

Armadillo - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:31 pm

---

Haven't listened to The Orb for quite a while, didn't think of it as complex, but they might have changed.
I have 3 CDs by FSOL, not the last 2 though. Dead cities was quite unique when it came out but not all that complex. Lifeforms was complex in the sense it had a shit loads of samples, but as you mention, not really loads of notes/chords/time signatures.

Massive Attack are great, but I'd consider their music being rather minimalistic and not really complex. They do have their own sound and was on the forefront with Trip hop so I have a lot of respect for them. I do for FSOL as well.

---

Topiness - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:40 pm

---

Maybe the obsession with 'fatness', 'warmth', etc doesn't help the composer introduce close counterpoint, as the notes of many synth sounds can sound quite discordant unless you space them out a lot, upon which they then take up the whole spectrum and leave no room for anything else...

FM sounds can be quite good for intricate lines.

---

pilot7 - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:45 pm

---

*deleted*

---

afreshcupofjoe - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:53 pm

---

Yes. I think this is what most people who don't care for electronic music don't understand.

---

BONES - Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:55 pm

---

Given that, maybe it's nothing more than a requirement of the genre. That certainyl seems to be your attitude - if it is complex, like Sakamoto, then it's not electronic music. I find that bizarre but then I find the whole question strange.

---

james0tucson - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:04 pm

---

[quote="HunterKiller"]

Leon Theremin, Maurice Martenot, Raymond Scott, Louis Barron, and Robert Moog.

---

HunterKiller - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:15 pm

---

Try 2-3 billion people mate!



Knew the left wing party couldn't contain themselves without making 'NWO' politically correct comments!

---

herodotus - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:20 pm

---

Pierre Schaeffer, Harry Olson, Herbert Belar, Edgard Varese, Don Buchla, Pril Smiley, Otto Luening.

---

nuffink - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:21 pm

---

Commie

---

G&L_player - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:23 pm

---

In my mind, there's a real-time apsect to the simplicity thing, as well. More specifically, the aspect of performing in the electronic arena can easily become more of a coordination effort of the "pieces" that are to be sewn. This, of course, has a musical aspect to it.

It's it a curiosity that people will look at you funny if you play your own arpeggios? (Seems to me.) It used to be a sin. Now, it's strategy/planning, which is appreciated just as well, as it contributes to the whole- "everything's gotta be phat" mentallity.

Personally, I find the electronic music arena to be the child of ARP/Moog days, where cats would come into a music store and see what they were supposed to pay so much for. Eventually, bands started letting the instrument challenge their creativity; some were lucky and found the right sound(s); the rest did the strings/pad/lead thing with the synth de jour.

It's just way past cool to see that there is an audience for all this stuff! Man, I missed out...shoulda stuck with the synth. (I used to get to chat with Tom Piggot when I was a kid- what an opportunity for any synth owner/lover!) Being a young electronic musician today must be like being the organist of the 60's-70's, only you have a layer of devices at each instrument level, and further control over the whole thing. What's going on today, is simply and answer to all of those questions (from that time)...cause and effect.

FYI: I'm a little jealous, because we couldn't get away with this much synth, back in the day...but I'm not that old, just grew up with it.

---

herodotus - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:28 pm

---

A guy who has a (probably apocryphal) Hegel quote for a sig is in no position to talk about mentioning obscure cultural figures. Because Hegel is way more obscure than the sound of an Ondes Martinot or a Theremin.

And Varese rocks.

Period.

---

k-bird - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:34 pm

---

The Orb's earlier stuff (say from go to the end of Orbus Terrarum) is very cleverly layered. It's seemingly been designed for enjoyment by people who are out of it on one thing or another because the old mental information filters need to be temporarily taken out of service to properly catch everything they put in there. It's certainly not complicated in a harmonic or melodic sense but in a textural sense it's very complex; the Orb arranged many of their tunes using sound effects to make them fully lush instead of tonal instruments.

If you want complexity on the scale of classical music or even jazz, i'd say go and listen to classical music or jazz. There's really no need to be biased against it because it's not performed with electronic instruments; electronic music isn't in competition with classical after all.

The way i see it, working with electronics gives a composer the leeway to summon whatever instrument sound they like from thin air, so you'll have to excuse us if we work more with textures than with harmony and melody.

---

herodotus - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:36 pm

---

Fascist.

---

nuffink - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:38 pm

---

Electronic music was invented by midge ure in 1992.

What do I win?

---

afreshcupofjoe - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:44 pm

---

I can't believe "Mr. A. Funk" hasn't been mentioned yet. You guys are really missing out:

http://www.venetiansnares.com/audio/samples/hospitality/shoot_myself.mp3

Not my favorite example of his work, but his other stuff will make your face melt off and we don't want that to happen.

---

Reverse Engineer - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:44 pm

---

Kate Bush's bush trimmings.

---

nuffink - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:46 pm

---

Again?

---

yemski - Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:51 pm

---

Hegel is very important to the development of Western ideas and philosophy, particularly in the way he influenced Marxism.
He can't really be classed as obscure.

True, more people are aware of the sound of the Theremin and (to a lesser extent) the Ondes Martenot, through old horror films and the recent resurgence of those instruments in popular music. It's doubtful many people could tell you what they were listening to though.

Granted not many people could tell you who Hegel was either. But I believe the small minority who could tell you who Hegel was would be larger in number than the small minority who could you what a Theremin is. As for the Ondes Martenot, I know a lot of musician's who had never heard of it, until I told them about it.

So pedantry over with, what were we talking about again?

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:02 pm

---

Of course I have (anyone making electronic music that haven't heard their music should probably get a sharp slap upside the head), and they all belong to the excluded categories I mentioned previous.



Thank you.



That's not quite what I meant--I'm just saying his electronic stuff (like the album B-2 Unit) tends to be very avant-garde. Of course it's electronic music, just not the kind being discussed. It's simple to make complex harmonies and counterpoint work in a non-beat/dance driven piece of music, because it doesn't have to convey the kind of vibe that's essential for beat-driven music.

---

yemski - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:12 pm

---

Most popular music is "simple", whatever that means.
A large proportion of popular music is electronic, ergo it is "simple".

Having said that their is plenty of electronic music out there that uses odd time signatures, complex harmony, and sophisticated counterpoint should you wish to search it out. Whether this makes it makes it not simple is entirely down to the cultural criteria you use to define simple and sophisticated.

As an excerise try and notate one of Eminem's raps (Hip Hop counts as electronic music in my mind) , or analyse it using other critical formulae such as sociological or anthropolgical observation and then try and tell me music like this is "simple". I tend not to get involved in discussion like this, since aesthetic judgement is probably the most subjective of all intellectual pursuits, given the fact that the tools one has to measure it are also themselves subjective.

---

BONES - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:15 pm

---

Which is exactly what I mean. You ask why electronic msuci is so simple, tehn you say that something that isn't simple is avant-garde, not electronic. So you're talking only about "dance" music, and probably only even then by the narrowest defintion, in which complexity is both unnecessary and a distraction from its main purpose - getting people onto a dancefloor. Skinny Puppy do some very complex, layered electronic music but the stuff I play at a club is the stripped-down stuff that works in that medium.
But it's irrelevant anyway because it can be just as hard to do something simple really well as it is to do something complex.

---

VicDiesel - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:27 pm

---

Well summarized.

Observation 1: if dance music is harmonically simple, so what? Your average salsa band has a trap drummer plus 3 percussionists, but hits an average of two chords per song. So what? It's not what that particular music is about.

Observation 2: you're asking for something impossible. Dance music lives on repetition. That doesn't go together with the continuous development that features in harmonically and contrapunctally rich music. Just try to imagine a trance gate stuttering out a single note for 16 beats, and then imagine interesting harmonies against that. If it can be done at all, it'll sound silly.

Victor.

---

DWb - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:28 pm

---

Truth.

A good example is that from a harmonic / melodic point of view, oldskool jungle tends to be very simple in so far as you can describe what's going on without much complicated notation. Describing what's going on rhythmically and timbrally is rather harder.

Then you get onto things like Basic Channel or Aphex's ambient stuff which is comparatively simple from any conventional point of view but which is effective in a way that's very hard to pin down - ie it's subtle. But is subtlety just a form of holistic complexity that we can't currently describle or explain? Not sure really...

Oh, and FWIW I think quite a lot of Detroit / intelligent techno and deep house got reasonably into jazzy chords and the like. It's still not exactly Bach, though.

---

ericj23 - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:30 pm

---

jean michell jarre as a pioneer of elctronic music - jesus these revisionist histories do my nut in

lets see jarre's first album 1977 - not exactly a pioneer then - stevie wonder, gorgio moroder & even throbbing gristle predate his work

and they were good as well

---

HunterKiller - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:30 pm

---

Are you have a bad day or somethin' buddy? PMS?

Come on man - I wasn't even talking to you - and to set things straight you are in NO position to judge me - what I say or my sig of the month! How bogan of you! Keep your self under check, and do not judge people you don't even know!

---

FaX - Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:36 pm

---

Burnt Friedman
Atom Heart
William Orbit
Flanger
Nine Horses
David Sylvian ( more electronic solo work) + tracks like Linoleum with Chris Vrenna (aka Tweaker).
BT
Aphex Twin
Certain Orbital tracks are IMHO quite Melodically dense and cleverly arranged.
808 State
Some great stuff done by Mark Bell (LFO).
Depeche Mode have had some great complex moments also and I think Martin Gore is a hugely underated song writer in general.
Riyuchi Sakamoto
Tomita
Wendy Carlos
Some of the Kraftwerk material is almost Baroque in melodic structure IMHO.
Graham Massey
Bjorks Material on Vespertine & Homogenic come to mind also.
Vangelis
Future Sound of London (Lifeforms & Dead Cities)
Oh and of course the glorius material by Murcof (Fernando Corona) is hard to beat also from where I stand particularly albums like Martes and Remembranza.
etc etc etc.....

---

BONES - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:07 pm

---

And let's not forget Popcorn.

---

james0tucson - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:10 pm

---

I wonder how many "The Big 5's" there are.

I also wonder if anyone else besides the OP regards that same list as "THE" big 5.

I would have been satisfied to place Raymond Scott as "The Big One", personally.

---

FaX - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:15 pm

---

Ba Da BipBip BipBipBop
Bip Da Bip Bip-e-da-Bop
Bi Bi
Bi-Bi-Bi
B-B-bi-da-bi-bi
Bu Ba Bi DoBipaBop

---

dalor - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:31 pm

---

No please, let's forget Popcorn. It was funny as a child. Let's leave it there.

---

Ambisphere - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:47 pm

---

Ever try composing a Psychedelic Trance track? Not so simple, and hardly simplistic.

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:51 pm

---

You guys seem to think I'm criticizing or accusing, but I'm not--I'm simply exploring the reasons why beat-driven electronic music doesn't work well with complex harmonies and counterpoint in the way other types of music could. Complex doesn't mean it's better, and simple doesn't mean it's inferior. Nowhere did I say that was the case. Some of my favorite songs are simple as hell--3 repeating chords and a basic beat, with a pleasant melody on top.

---

BONES - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:00 pm

---

In that case, I think we're done.

---

deaf dunderkwac - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:01 pm

---

so maybe the question you need to ask doesn't exclusively have to do with 'electronic music'.

Most beat-driven music is a bit simplistic, in my opinion.
(hee I have some of those... opinions)

---

dalor - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:21 pm

---

I see music (electronic, classic or whatever) as an expression of your mood. It can make you dance, aggressive, smile, think - and sometimes even vomit (in case its country music). Listen to what you feel like, if electronic music doesn't work for you then there is an eqivalent in another music style (there must be).

---

frequency_algorithm - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:27 pm

---

i've heard tons of complex shit from electronic peeps. What about goldies timeless? Where the f**k you been all these years?

---

vespers75 - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:45 pm

---

I feel that Ulver's 'Perdition City' is quite complex on many levels...regarding composition, texture, songwriting craft, etc.

---

herodotus - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:46 pm

---

Oh settle down.

I am not judging you.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person.

And I like Hegel. I even read his Philosophy of History. Though I'll admit that the Phenomenology of Spirit did confuse me a bit.

---

frequency_algorithm - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:47 pm

---

what about sphongle or ltj bukem...talvin sungh vs. kid loco, so fricken many i can't believe you nerds! lol

---

Rekko11 - Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:51 pm

---

Thats the kind of statement made by absolute morons who can't produce the music they are talking about themselves, and have no understanding of it. Just like the armchair critic who says a football player is bad but who would absolutely suck in comparison if they themselves where on the field..

---

insaneacyde - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 pm

---

because MIDI in conjunction with Piano roll interfaces is just about the most assface way to write expressive music.

---

frequency_algorithm - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:19 pm

---

what's "assface?"

---

funkadil - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:21 pm

---

I disagree. With a good piano roll interface, expressive music is very intuitive and easy. What is a better way?

---

insaneacyde - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:33 pm

---

thoose two things on your arms.

---

insaneacyde - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:35 pm

---

i pick up a guitar and do a trem, hammer on, pull-off slide... i pick up my Keyboard controller and i bend the thingy....lame

---

Emerald Tablet - Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:35 pm

---

the music you listen to is always as simple as your taste

btw ...simple is bliss

---

Lunatique - Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:23 pm

---

That's a bit broad of a statement? Have you actually gone and listened to the music made by all the people who have participated in this discussion?

---

CypherOne - Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:47 pm

---

can't be arsed to read the entire thread, but has anyone made the distinction between electronic music and dance music? See I would agree that dance music is by and large pretty simple, but electronic 'non-dance' can be as complicated as anything.

I think dance music needs to be simple due to the drug addled target audience. You wouldn't get clubbers saying "ooh, splendid counterpoint there and I really admire the unexpected use of Esus4" (or whatever) - they're more likely to say "oooh, these Es are great"

Besides, I would suggest that Top 40 mainstream pop and R&B is simpler than most dance music.

---

There are 280 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2 3